κδισισα 


μι δ δ ἐδ γορεφη ων νϑὶ 
anteeseent 


. ον 9... 
reef avait tall 


mnt τὰ» 
te gh 


ΓΡΆΨΕΙ 


᾿ io = Ξ τ τας; Ὡς ee ον - . δ: ep — ΦᾺΣ ΜΞ . 
“Siohaaihens a κεν τς ῳ φὴν νος εν αὐνὸ δι φονδιλωὸς ΝΥ ated aa oy. = Sn πο στ τ τὰ ὡς SP hehe, ἜΣ Pontes ee 
A ΡΣ : 


= 


anne: 













y 
~ DEC 4 1926 | 
Lea, OGICAL en 


Divist ἢ 


Sectiou 














A COMMENTARY 


ὶ ON THE 


FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHTANS. 


BY 


THOMAS CHARLES EDWARDS, M.A., 
OF LINCOLN COLLEGE, OXFORD. ; 


Principal of the University College of Wales, Aberystwyth. 
SECOND EDITION. 


Ὁ δὲ Κύριος τὸ Πνεῦμά ἐστιν' 
οὗ ϑὲ τὸ Πνεῦμα Κυρίου, ἐλευθερία. 





Key Pork : 
A. C. ARMSTRONG & SON, 
714, BROADWAY. 
1886. 








Dedicated 


TO TWO REVERED TEACHERS, 







AND SPIRITUALLY 3; 







TO 


THE ‘REY. BENJAMIN JOWETT, D.D. (Leyp.), | 


Masrer 69; ΤΥ Ἢ ConecE, . . .ἢ i) 







Bp xm Ruorvs ProressoROFGREEK ὃ. τ᾿ 
Εν. ree IN THE "ΟἽ ea eR 
_ UNIVERSITY OF Oxror 






AN: ‘D TO 
My FATHER, 






of ᾿ cP Tan 








PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. 


SEVERAL years ago I entered on a solitary and prolonged 
study of the Apostle Paul, from a desire to find out for 
myself, if possible, his real meaning and central principle. 
This principle seemed to me to spring first to the front in 
the Epistles to the Corinthian Church. But in the effort to 
understand it and the Apostle’s application of it to the diffi- 
culties and faults of his readers, I found the truth of Wycliffe’s 
remark “that Paulis wordis passen othere writingis in two 
thingis,—thei ben pure, sutil, and plentenous to preche the 
puple.” As I proceeded, I was ever more convinced of the 
vitality and power of his doctrine of Christ, its sufficiency, 
its peculiar fitness, to rekindle our dying faith. To me its 
power was the evidence of its truth. It seemed, not merely 
to answer the anxious questions of the age, but also to raise 
the entire spiritual life into a higher sphere, in which doubt 
is put away with the things of the child and faith in the 
supernatural made human becomes a promise of strength 
and a pledge of victory. Not that St. Paul in any way re- 
presents our age. In a very true sense he does not represent 
his own. But the contrast itself gives a startling force to his 
strong and stirring thoughts. They come to us, as they came 
to the Corinthians, from afar, untarnished by the foibles and 
fashions of the hour, like the quickening voice of one crying 
in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord Christ ;— 
in the wilderness, very far away from the petty strifes of sects 


vi PREFACE. 


and parties, in touch anew with God. Here in Wales, at least, 
I am very sure that what we most need is to go outside our 
age and bring down into it a force not ourselves. I do not 
mean to say that the doctrines of our various Churches are 
false. ‘They have been too much handled as excellent themes 
for controversy. But to determine the worth of a doctrine, we 
must ask, not whether it can be argued about, but whether 
it can be preached. Our truths néed vitalising by contact 
with a larger truth; for living truths alone make the preacher. 
Must we, then, wait until the great idea rises out of the deep ? 
I will not answer the question by reminding the reader that 
every renewal in the spiritual life of the West has hitherto 
been. brought about by fresh contact with the Hast. Rather, 
let us again read for ourselves the New Testament, the book 
which is both Semitic and Aryan, ever belonging to the 
past, and always from the past swaying the present, to see 
if the new idea we are in search of may not, after all, be 
the truth which we have heard from the beginning—Jesus 
Christ, yesterday and to-day the same and for ever. At least, 
this is the very life of St. Paul’s Christianity, the root of 
his personal character, the central truth of his theology, the 
infinite strength and triumph of his preaching to a weary 
and dejected generation. 

I wish above all things, not merely to give results, but— 
if I may dare hope it—to guide and help those who are, like 
myself, students and disciples of St. Paul. Most of the gram- 
matical notes were read to a class at this college. The more 
strictly exegetical portions formed the substance of lectures 
given at a theological college in North Wales. Ten years 
ago the Corinthian Hpistles were comparatively neglected in 
this country. Of late several excellent commentaries have 
appeared, which might well discourage the hope of an un- 
known writer to win a hearing. I offer my contribution with 
the utmost diffidence. No one that pursues his studies in 
great centres of learning knows how difficult it is for persons 


PREFACE. Vii 


dwelling in a remote corner to acquaint themselves with the 
latest researches and speculations. I am very far from 
wishing to stave off criticism. But I am tempted by its 
almost perfect aptness to borrow the apology of Ireneus: 
Οὐκ ἐπιζητήσεις παρ᾽ ἡμῶν, τῶν ἐν Κελτοῖς διατριβόντων καὶ 
περὶ βάρβαρον διάλεκτον τὸ πλεῖστον ἀσχολουμένων, λόγων 
τέχνην ἣν οὐκ' ἐμάθομεν (Adv.Her. 1., Praf.). The spirit 
in which I have written finds utterance in the prayer of 
Augustine: “Coram Te est scientia et ignorantia mea; ubi 
mihi aperuisti, suscipe intrantem ; ubi clausisti, aperi pulsanti” 
(De Trin. XV. 28). 
De Cia 


ABERYsTWYTH, Feb. 4th, 1885. 


PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 


A seconp edition of this commentary has been called for too 
soon after the publication of the first, to make it possible to 
reconsider, with advantage, the interpretation of any passage. 
But several mistakes have been corrected. The names of 
Dr. Hodge and Dean Stanley were inadvertently omitted in 
the Introduction. The reader will see that both have been 
consulted. They are opposites in almost every respect. 
Hodge is theological and has excellent judgment. His 
method recalls Calvin. Stanley will charm many, and 
irritate some, by concealing theology under unsurpassed 
power of description and wealth of illustration. 

My hearty thanks are due to the reviewers. All have spoken 
of the book with friendliness, and shown that they can be just 
and generous, even when our points of view are wide apart. 


Ts) Oa, 
AseErystwytH, Feb, 4th, 1885. 


> 


(RODUCTION 


é + 
war 
QO} 


Η 20% 








INTRODUCTION. 


§ 1. Sr. Pavt at Corinth. § 2. Corinth in St. Panl’s time. 
δὰ 3, 4. The Corinthian Church founded by St. Panl. § 5. 
Apollos at Corinth. § 6. A second visit of St. Paul before 
A.D. 57 doubtful. ὃ 7. St. Paul wrote a previous letter to the 
Corinthians. § 8. Factions in the Church. § 9. The Epistle 
written by St. Paul. §§ 10, 11. External evidence of its 
genuineness. § 12. Karly citations, § 13. Internal evidence. 
§ 14. Place of writing. § 15. Time of writing. §16. The 
group of Epistles to which it belongs. § 17. Interest of the 
Epistle at the present time. § 18. St. Paul’s characteristics 
as a thinker. §19. The central idea of the Epistle. § 20. 
St. Paul’s relation to Greek thought. § 21. Contrast between 
his method and the modern method. § 22. The Epistle in 
the Church. § 23. Tertullian. § 24. Origen. § 25. Husebius, 
Didymus, ete. § 26. ‘Theodore of Mopsuestia. § 27. Chry- 
sostom, Theodoret. ᾧ 28. Pelagius. ᾧ 29. Ambrosiaster. 
§ 30. Catene. § 31. Aquinas. § 32. De Lyra. § 33. Valla, 
Colet. ὃ 34. Erasmus. § 35. Cajetan. § 36. Calvin. § 37. 
The Puritans, Peter Martyr. § 38. Hstius. § 39. A Lapidé. 
§ 40. Grotius. § 41. Bengel. § 42. Recent German ex- 
positors. § 43. F.C. Baur. § 44. Dean Alford, etc. 


§1. St. Paul never preached to the scholars of Alexandria,! 
and apparently failed to make converts of the literary men of 


1 Why he did not visit Alexandria is an interesting but by no means easy 
question. It is not, however, surprising that the Alexandrian teachers, Clement 
and Origen, ascribe the so called Epistle of Barnabas to the companion of the 
Apostle. The supposed fitness of things demanded that the Apostle’s doctrine 
of γνῶσις should be introduced by an authoritative teacher. 

xi 


ΧΙ INTRODUCTION. 


Athens.! In neither place had the Jew lost his religious 
exclusiveness. In both cities the mantled philosophers still 
walked through the groves or sat in the porch, repeating the 
wise sayings and ingenious problems of other times, without 
originality even in their doubt, much less in their faith. But 
in Corinth the Apostle, who knew the anguish of conflict 
and the joy of spiritual victory, came into contact with the 
feverish agony of life. To men that sinned and suffered 
he preached Christ crucified. They heard him gladly and 
found peace. 

§ 2. The Corinth: of the apostle’s time was, and was not, 
the Corinth of the Achzan League. Destroyed by the Roman 
general Mummius, B.c. 146, it lay in ruins for exactly one 
hundred years, when Julius Cesar, in pursuance of a scheme 
to create an empire in Ahe provinces that might balance the 
power of Rome, rebfilt and peopled it with a colony of 
veterans and freedmen.? Pausanias® gives us to understand 
that none of the descendants of the former inhabitants were 
reinstated in the restored city. This was of much less im- 
portance in Corinth than it would have been in Athens; for 
from Homer’s days to its downfall, and after the Julian 
restoration, the prosperity of Corinth depended almost en- 
tirely on its geographical position. The Isthmus, which joined 
northern Greece to Peloponnesus, and cut off the Algean Sea 
from the Corinthian Gulf, was necessarily the highway of 
commerce. Into Corinth flowed the wealth of Hust and of 
West. Here the intellectual forces of the age met. Hither 
streamed the licentiousness that had been either the shame 
or the religion, or both, of the lands of its birth. Of Greek 
cities the least Greek, it was at this time the least Roman of 
Roman colonies. The cult of Aphrodité, for which Corinth 
was famous, was Greek ; but her priestly establishment, con- 
sisting of a thousand courtesans, was an attempt to acclimatise 


1 The narrative in Acts xvii. 15, 16 gives one the impression that St. Paul 
did not go to Athens with the express intention of preaching. He was there in 
hiding. But when he saw the city wholly given to idols, his spirit was stirred 
within him, and he could not keep silence. Even in Athens his labours were 
not altogether in vain. In the time of Hadrian one Christian apologist is a 
philosopher, and another is a bishop, in Athens. 

2 Dion. Cass. xliii. 50. Cf. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, ch. i. ὃ 8. 

8 Paus. ii. 1 and 8, 


INTRODUCTION. Xill 


the worship of the Pheenician Astarte.! Politically Roman, 
socially Greek, religiously it was Roman, Greek, Oriental, 
all in one. When, therefore, the Apostle preached to the 
Corinthians, the Gospel spoke to the whole world and to 
the living present. 

§ 3. That the Christian Church in Corinth was founded 
by St. Paul is abundantly evident from 1 Cor. in. 6; iv. 15; 
2 Cor. i. 19; x. 10, with which Acts xviii. 8 agrees. It is 
true that Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth in the latter half of the 
second century, asserts that St. Peter and St. Paul together 
planted the Corinthian Church.? It was probably one of the 
orthodox legends that sprang up in the second century in 
opposition to the Ebionitic theory of antagonism between 
St. Paul and the other Apostles.’ 

§ 4. The Apostle came to Corinth from Athens on his 
second missionary journey, 4.p. 51. Cf. Acts xvii. 1. His 
first base of operations was the synagogue. Driven thence, 
but not before he had secured a foothold for Christianity, he 
preached to all comers in the house of a proselyte named 
Justus, who, with Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, had 
believed. He made many converts, mostly persons of low 
birth, some Jews, but the greater number, as we may infer 
from 1 Cor. xii. 2, Gentiles. He established also several 
Churches outside Corinth, in the Province of Achaia. Cf. Rom. 
xvi. 1,16; 2Cor.i.1. Before his departure he wrote the two 
Epistles to the Thessalonians. He left Corinth for Jerusalem 
in the summer of A.D. 53. 

§ 5. We next hear of the arrival of Apollos from Ephesus, 
According to the narrative in the Book of Acts* this gifted 
Jew of Alexandria had been led by his study of Scripture, 
independently of apostolic teaching, to the conviction that 
Jesus was Messiah. He was an unbaptized believer. During 
his stay at Ephesus he received further instruction from 
Aquila and Prisca. But, though baptized, as we may sup- 
pose, by these faithful. friends of St. Paul, he was still 


1 Strabo viii. 20; Athen. xiii. 82. Cf. Renan, St. Paul, p. 218. 

2 Euseb., Hist. Eccles. II 25. 

3 This is Lipsius’s plausible conjecture. Cf. Dict. of Christ. Biography, s.v. 
Acts. 

4 I may remark once for all that I take for granted throughout that the 
narrative is trustworthy history. 


XIV INTRODUCTION. 


personally unknown to the Apostle, who did not reach Ephe- 
sus, on his third missionary journey, before Apollos left 
for Corinth. Here, then, we encounter a form of Christianity 
im a great measure independent of Pauline doctrine, con- 
sisting of a combination of Alexandrian theosophy and 


| mysticism and a belief in the Messiahship of the historical 
| Jesus of Nazareth. We are prepared to hear of a disturbing 


influence in the Corinthian Church, certainly not in con- 
scious antagonism to St. Paul’s teaching, but in comparative 
ignorance on the part of Apollos of its more characteristic 
features. Cf. the introductory remarks on i. 10. After a 
brief stay at Corinth Apollos returned to Ephesus, and saw 
St. Paul. He was there at the time our Epistle was written. 
Cf. 1 Cor. xvi. 12. The stronger mind of the Christian Apo- 
stle, illumined by frequent revelations, began to mould the 
half-enlightened spirit of the philosophical believer. Their 
evidently close agreement from the first is an intimation that 
the Apostle’s fundamental conceptions were in some sort kith 
and kin with the speculations of Philo. That we know so 
little about Apollos is much to be regretted. If we had his 
history we should, in all probability, be better able to trace 
the formation and growth of St. Paul’s theology. 

§ 6. Chrysostom! places a second visit of the Apostle to 
Corinth, not mentioned in the Book of Acts, between a.p. 55 
and Α.Ὁ. 57. It was suggested also in modern times by 
Bleek,? and the supposition is accepted by Neander, Haus- 
rath, Meyer, Reuss, Klépper, Alford, Conybeare and Howson, 
S. Davidson, etc. But De Wette, Baur, and Renan reject it. 
The word τρίτον in 2 Cor. xii. 14 and xiii. 1 does not prove 
it; for it may mean the third time to form the intention of 
coming to Corinth. Nor is it implied in the word ἄρτι 
(1 Cor. xvi. 7); for ἄρτι cannot mean “on this occasion,” as 
distinguished from a former one. Nor can it be inferred 
from πάλιν (2 Cor. 11. 1); for πάλιν need not be joined with 
λύπῃ, as though the Apostle had been already at Corinth 
grieving over the dissensions which had broken out after his 
first visit. More weight attaches to the words ὡς παρὼν τὸ 
δεύτερον καὶ ἀπὼν νῦν (2 Cor. xiii. 2). But even this is not 
conclusive; for the words may mean, “as if I were a second 

1 Hom, in 2 Cor. xii. 14. 3 Stud. κι. Krit. 1830, drittes Heft. 


INTRODUCTION. XV 


time present with you, though I am now absent.” It is true 
the word δεύτερον is not decisive on the other side; for it 
may refer to the two visits he intended paying them, the 
One on his way to Macedonia, the other on his return. The 
supposed visit must have taken place after the departure of 
Apollos from Corinth. But the factions were occasioned, in 
part at least, by the preaching of Apollos. Now St. Paul 
says (1 Cor. i. 11) that he first heard of them in Ephesus from 
Chloe’s servants. This seems to be inconsistent with the 
supposition of an intermediate visit. May we not conjecture 
that he abandoned the intention of going to Corinth that he 
might visit Crete? 

δ 7. In a.p. 56 the Apostle wrote a letter to the Corinthians 
which is now lost, of which indeed there is no trace in the 
early Church. Clement of Alexandria! and Tertullian® call 
our Kpistle the First to the Corinthians. That such an epistle 
was written may be inferred from 1 Cor. v. 9, ἔγραψα, and 
from the statement in 2 Cor. ix. 2 that the Churches of Achaia 
had already a year before completed the collection for the 
poor saints in Jerusalem. For St. Paul had not, when he 
first visited Corinth, promised the Apostles that he would 
make this collection. He wrote, therefore, perhaps by Titus, 
to request thé Church to contribute. It may also be inferred 
with some probability from 2 Cor. i. 15-17, where he rebuts 
a charge of fickleness brought against him, because he had at 
one time purposed coming to Corinth before going to Mace- 
donia, but afterwards decided to pass through Macedonia on 
his way to Corinth. When did he inform the Corinthians of 
his former intention? It is implied in the first part of our 
Epistle, and probably, therefore, it was explicitly stated in a 
previous epistle not now extant. 

δ 8. In less than a twelvemonth (A.D. 57) news of a dis- 
tressing nature comes to the Apostle’s ears. The Christian 
society in Corinth is rent by factions ; scandalous immorality 
is suffered in the Church; Christians go to law with Christians 
before heathen tribunals; and disorder prevails in the Church 
assemblies. He makes no delay to send Timotheus, who was 
with him at Corinth and has rejoined him at Ephesus, and 
Erastus, himself a Corinthian, to admonish the Church (ef. 

1 Pedag. i. p.117, Potter. Vide infra. 3 Ad Usxor. ii. p. 2, et al. 


xv1 INTRODUCTION. 


note on iv. 17). Not long after, messengers a ὃ sent by the 
Corinthians to seek the Apostle’s advice on sc ne matters of 
practical difficulty. He replies to their questio s, and seizes 
the opportunity to endeavour at the same time t» put an end 
to their dissensions by entering into an elaborat and charac- 


| teristic series of arguments as to the fundamenti | doctrine of 


Christianity, and its bearing on practical life. ‘‘his reply is 


our First Epistle. 

§ 9. That it is written by St. Paul is beyond doubt. Iam 
not aware that it has ever been questioned excep: by Bruno 
Bauer! and the Jewish historian Gratz. Origen says? he 
never heard that anybody considered it spurious. It is one 
of the four Epistles of which critics of the school of F. C. Baur 
admit the Pauline authorship. 

§ 10. External testimonies to its genuineness abound, and 
are much stronger than in the case of any one of the other 
Epistles which Baur acknowledges to have been written by 
St. Paul. It will be enough to indicate the most important. 

§ 11. Among many references to the Epistle in the writ- 
ings of Clement, who was head of the catechetical school 
of Alexandria towards the close of the second century, the 
following is noteworthy: Σαφέστατα γοῦν ὁ μακάριος Παῦλος 
ἀπήλλαξεν ἡμᾶς τῆς ζητήσεως, ἐν τῇ προτέρᾳ πρὸς Κορινθίους 
ἐπιστολῇ ὧδε πως γράφων' Ἀδελφοί, μὴ παιδία γίνεσθε ταῖς 
φρεσίν. . . . Ἐπείδη γέγονα, φησίν, ἀνὴρ, πάλιν ὁ Παῦλος 
λέγει, κατήργηκα τὰ τοῦ νηπίου.)  Tatian, who was at one 
time a follower of Justin Martyr and lived in the latter half 
of the second century, is said by Jerome‘ to have rejected 
some of Paul’s Epistles; but he cites 1 Cor. xv. 22, to prove, 
says Irenzeus,® that Adam was not saved. Tertullian ὁ speaks 
of himself as writing about 160 years after the date of the 
First Epistle to the Corinthians, that is, about a.p. 217. He 
ascribes it repeatedly to Paul. ‘Ipsum Paulum,” he svys,’ 
“ dixisse factum se esse omnibus omnia, Judeis Judzum, non 
Judzis non Judzum, ut omnes lucrifaceret.’? Athenagoras ὃ 
(circa A.D. 177) ascribes the statement made in 1 Cor. xv. 54 


1 Kritik der Paulinischen Briefe, 1851. Zweite Abth. 

2 Comm. in Matt. xxvii. 9. 3 Pedag., ut sup. 4 Ep. ad Tit., Pref. 
5 Adv. Har. 111. xxxix. (xxviii.), 8. § De Mong. 3. 

7 De Prescript. Heret. 24. 8 De Resur. Mort. 18. 


INTRODUCTION. XVil 


to “the Apostle.” In Polycarp’s Epistle to the Plilippians 
(Latin version), which has been assigned to the year 155, the 
words, “ Know ye not that the saints shall judge the earth ? ” 
are cited as Paul’s. Marcion (circa a.pD. 1385-142) admits 
the Epistle into his canon, and asserts its genuineness. If 
Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians belongs to the 
reign of Domitian, between a.p. 93 and 97,1}. ample testimony 
to the genuineness of our Epistle ascends to within forty years 
after it was written: AvaddBere, says Clement,? τὴν ἐπιστολὴν 
τοῦ μακαρίου Παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου, . . 
ἡμῖν περὶ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ᾿4πολλὼ καὶ Κηφᾶ. 

§ 12. Early citations from the Epistle, without special 
ascription of it to St. Paul, are plentiful. For instance, Justin 
Martyr® (d. a.p. 148) cites 1 Cor. v. 7. Hermas (circa 92- 
101) appears to be citing 1 Cor. vii. 9 in Mand. iv. 4. Several 
words occur in the ‘‘ Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs” 
(circa 100-120) which are not found in the New Testament 
except in our Hpistle, such as ἀποδείξις, διαίρεσις, ὄσφρησις, 
παρεδρεύειν. If we assign some of the Ignatian Hpistles to 
A.D. 116 at latest, 1 Cor. i. 20 and iv. 13 are unquestionably 
in the writer’s eye when he says,* Περίψημα τὸ ἐμὸν πνεῦμα 
Tov σταυροῦ, 6 ἐστιν σκάνδαλον τοῖς ἀπιστοῦσιν. . . . Ποῦ 
σοφός; ποῦ συζητητής ; ποῦ καύχησις τῶν λεγομένων συνετῶν ; 
I find a few allusions in the ““ΠΠΘδομίπρ' of the Twelve Apo- 
stles,”” which Harnack assigns to a.p. 140-165, Bryennius to 
A.D. 120-160, and some to a still earlier date. The Homily, 
which passed formerly as Clement of Rome’s Second Letter, 
but was in all probability written at Corinth between a.p. 120 
and 140, contains an allusion to 1 Cor. i. 28, in the words 
ἠθέλησεν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἶναι ἡμᾶς. Clement’s Epistle 


. ἐπέστειλεν 


, alludes to ii. 23; xii. 18; xiii. 4-7; and xv. 37. 


§ 18. If we had no patristic testimonies, we have what is. 


- still better, internal evidence of the strongest kind, traits that 


a forger of the second century could not have imitated, As-. 

suming the authenticity of the Book of Acts, the writer of the 

Epistle and the historian’s missionary Apostle present similar 

features,—the same rare combination of vehement energy and 
1 So Gebhardt, Prolegomena, p. lx. 2 Ad Cor. 47. 


8 Dial. 14, p. 231 Ὁ. Also cf. note on xii, 2. 
4 Ad Ephes. 18. δ Cap. 1.. 


XVill INTRODUCTION. 


intellectual keenness. If the Epistle is compared with the 
other three which are universally acknowledged to have been 
written by St. Paul, we find in all of them the same effective 
use of superlative verbs, the same proneness, noticed by Chry- 
sostom,! to “ go off on a word,” if Paley’s phrase may once 
more be allowed, the same doctrinal basis, the same irony and 
tenderness combined, the same half-humorous, half-unconscious 
* play upon words” and “allusions to the witness of his own 
life.’ ? The Hpistle is Pauline from first to last. Here at 
least we have not “a page of Timothy.”’® As in the other 
Hpistles of St. Paul, the meaning grows upon the reader. 
Superficially the language is correctly characterised by Renan 
as broyée, But it has this appearance only when we deny or 
lose sight of the Apostle’s underlying principles. What ap- 
pears on first reading to be broken and illogical proves in the 
end to be true and profound. 

§ 14. The Epistle was written from Ephesus. We are 
safe in gathering this from 1 Cor. xvi. 8,9. The Vatican ΜΆ. 
has the subscription, ἐγράφη ἀπὸ ᾿Εφέσου. 

§ 15. The time of writing may be inferred approximately, 
‘supposing Festus to have entered on his procuratorship in the 
year 60.4 For the Apostle’s imprisonment in Ceesarea begins 
‘two years before the accession of Festus, and he tarried in 
‘Corinth immediately before his imprisonment three months. 
‘Cf. Acts xx. 3. He must therefore have arrived there in the 
‘beginning or middle of winter, a.p..57. But the interval be- 
‘tween his departure from Ephesus and arrival in Corinth was 
occupied in the journey to T'roas, Philippi, and IIlyricum, ex- 
itending probably over the whole of summer. Cf. Acts xx. 1-3 ; 
Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. ii. 12,13. In 1 Cor. xvi. 8 the Apostle 
‘says he did not intend leaving Ephesus before Pentecost. It 
follows that the Epistle was written before the beginning of 
‘summer, A.D. 57. How long before? A sufficient time must 
be allowed, after the return of Apollos from Corinth, for the 
subsequent rise of the factions in the Corinthian Church and 


1 Hom. 28 in 1 Cor. xi.: Ἔθος τοῦτο τῷ Παύλῳ. . -. ἐὰν ἕτερος παρεμπέσῃ 
ἡλόγος τῇ ὑποθέσει, καὶ τούτῳ μετὰ πολλῆς ἐπεξιέναι τῆς σπουδῆς. 

2 Jowett, Episiles of St. Paul, vol. i. p. 77. 

3 Renan, St. Paul, p. 232. 

4 It may have been in 61 or the beginning of 62. Cf. Joseph., B. J. VI. νυ. 3. 


INTRODUCTION. XIX 


the journoy of Chloe’s servants from Corinth with tidings to 
the Apostle at Ephesus. Cf..1 Cor.i.11; xvi. 12. Again, 
Timotheus had been already sent to Corinth in consequence of 
these tidings. But this occurred not long before the Apostle 
himself left Ephesus. Cf. Acts xix. 22; xx.1. We may 
infer that the Epistle was written shortly before his departure 
from Ephesus, that is, in the spring of a.p.57. By extend- 
ing the journey to Illyricum over a whole twelvemonth, some 
writers are led to assign the Epistle to the year 56. But this 
would give too short a time for the rise of the factions in 
Corinth. If, what is by no means unlikely, 1 Cor. v. 6-8 is 
an allusion to a recent celebration of Passover, then the 
Kpistle was written on the eve of Pentecost. Cf. note on 
av. 19, 

§ 16. St. Paul’s Epistles range themselves in groups. He 
writes first the two Epistles to the Thessalonians. After an 
interval of four or five years he writes the Epistles to the 
Corinthians, to the Galatians, and to the Romans. Our Hpistle 
belongs, therefore, to the second group.! In accordance with 
this we naturally expect to find in it an advance on the teach- 
ing of the Epistles to the Thessalonians. During the four or 
five years that have elapsed few stirring events have occurred. 
The Apostle has spent a large portion of the time at Ephesus, 
with Apollos for his companion, Whether the influence of 
Alexandria, or closer acquaintance with Greek ideas, or his own 
insight gave him the clue, the result is the growth of a peculiar 
theology, which mainly rests on the conception of a mystical 
union between Christ and the believer. Never for a moment 
wavering in his belief in the supernatural facts of Christianity, 
which have brought to pass so great a revolution as the con- 
version of the persecutor into an Apostle, and always ac- 
knowledging their authority over his spirit, he has at length 
discovered a principle that will explain their inner meaning, 
transform his hopes of the speedy return of Christ in His king- 
dom from earthly to spiritual, and render love to Christ, not a 
short-lived affection or a mere feeling of thankfulness, but an 
undying, holy well-spring of zeal and absolute consecration to 
the service of the living and glorified Jesus, into communion 


1 The statement in the Muratorian Fragment that this was the first Epistle 
written by St. Paul has not, so far as [am aware, been satisfactorily explained. 


XX INTRODUCTION. 


with whom he has entered, and from whose abiding presence he 
derives all grace. In short, the difference between the two 
Bpistles to the Thessalonians and the less simple and pathetic, 
but more profound, Epistles to the Corinthians lies in the new 
conception that sustains the keenly philosophical reasonings of 
the Apostle in the latter concerning Christ, whom he knows 
no more after the flesh, but after the spirit. 

§ 17. The Epistle is, for this reason, especially interesting 
at the present time. It combines to a remarkable degree 
modern questions and ancient methods. It touches on several 
of the points around which the battle of Christianity in our 
day is fought,—the person of Jesus Christ, the supernatural 
element in the Church and in the Christian character, miracles, 
easuistry, and the resurrection of the dead. But the Apostle’s 
statements on these and kindred topics are not conceived in 
the modern spirit. They are not tentative and inductive, but 
idealistic. He posits fundamental ideas, which he, like Christ, 
does not attempt to prove! Itis only when he raises a super- 
structure of truths on this foundation that discussion begins. 
If the reader rejects the assumptions as mystical unreason, the 
Apostle’s entire doctrinal system must be unintelligible to 
him, except as the allegorical garb of practical exhortation. 

§ 18. We have no safe ground, it is true, for the inference 
that St. Paul consciously formulated a purely philosophical sys- 
tem, which might be applied to the solution of all religious 
problems as they arose. But a thoughtful reader of his Epis- 
tles will have no difficulty to discover the bent of his mind, 
even when it acts most freely. He is ever seeking the one m 
the many; and when he has found it, the unifying principle 
assumes in his eyes an objectiveness of character, and becomes 
a real cosmical factor. His search for unity was partly the 
half-unconscious yearning of a profound intellect that re- 
mained to the end more or less a stranger to the conflict of 
the later Greek schools, partly it embodied the spirit of the 
age, which felt the reaction against scepticism and faced the 
ever-recurring question of dualism from the side of religion. 
Such a philosophy, however latent, could not fail to give birth 


1 Longinus, or whoever is the author of Fragm. 1 that passes under his name, 
says the Apostle Paul was the first to excel in teaching doctrines of which he 
could offer no proof. 


INTRODUCTION. xxi 


to a very pronounced theology. In that theology a conspicuous 
place would be assigned to such ideas as lend themselves to 
the gathering of many particulars under general principles. 
The Apostle’s system of religious thought lay at the farthest 
distance from empiricism and individualism. The principle 
that no truth can be admitted except on the express warrant 
of consciousness is modern. St. Paul knows as little of it as 
Plato. Criticism of principles, in the modern sense of the term, 
by interrogating consciousness, there is none in his Epistles. 
In this sense he may be justly classed among mystical writers. 
He writes ὥσπερ ποθὲν ἄνωθεν, to borrow a Platonic phrase 
used by M. Antoninus (vii. 48). He appeals not even to the 
universal reason, but to the spiritual man; that is to say, his 
assumption is in part identical with that of Plato or Aristotle, 
but is carried a great way beyond the tendency to mysticism, 
which is all we can desecry in their writings, into the land. 
which is very far off. As the Greeks proclaimed the ultimate 
authority of the σπουδαῖος, so the Apostle refers all theological 
and moral questions to the πνευματικός, who judges all things 
because he has the mind or moral intellect of Christ. The 
source of St. Paul’s ideas, therefore, is not invention, but reve- 
lation—an outward revelation of certain essential facts, and an 
inward revelation of the principles involved in them. Those 
facts and those principles centre in Jesus Christ. The Christ 
of Paul is at once the historical Jesus and the risen Lord in 
heaven. His fundamental philosophical assumptions would 
be accredited to his mind by their spiritual inflaence, their 
practical use, their consistency with his moral couvictions, and 
their readiness to fit into the revelations which he believed 
limself to have received from God concerning the person of 
Jesus Christ aud the meaning and power of His life, death, and 
resurrection. Plato’s ideas ‘dwell in heaven.” If they were 
on earth, they would be individual, and consequently imperfect. 
Similarly in St. Paul’s teaching the Christ lives a heavenly life. 
He is spiritual, supernatural, absolute. What is of the earth 
is earthy, and what is of the flesh is flesh. By regarding the 
secoud Adam, uot as a mere Adam or earthly man, but as a 
quickening Spirit and as the second Man from heaven, the 
Apostle finds place for the identification of Jesus Christ with 
the ideally and absolutely good. We admit that to the Greek 


XXii INTRODUCTION. 


conception, that religion is the criterion of truth, we must add 
the Hebrew idea of religion as involving a moral law, the 
consciousness of sin, and the felt necessity of an atonement. 
The spiritual man is before all things a saved man. The 
Christ of heaven is the crucified Saviour. The gospel calls «n 
men to repent and believe. But it is precisely in the union 
of salvation through au atonemeut and salvation unto spiritu- 
ality that the true greatness of St. Pal’s representation 
of Christianity lies. What corresponds most nearly tn his 
teaching to the modern conception of consciousness as test 
of truth is faith; for it combines trust in God’s mercy and a 
realization of Christ as a perfect ideal. Faith is both the ery 
of the terror-stricken simner for pity, and the eye of the 
spiritual mav that can look at the sun without blinking; and 
it is the one and the other because it unites the soul to Christ, 
who is at once the Saviour and the Example. 

§ 19. The conception of a mystical union between Christ 
and the believer, as it is the pivot of the Apostle’s entire 
theology,’ is also the key to the intricacies of the First 
Epistle to the Corinthians. The main divisions of the Epistle 
treat successively of the factions in the Church; the case of 
incest; marriage; the eating meat offered to idols; the in- 
subordination of women in the Church assemblies; the Lord’s 
Supper; the resurrection of the dead. The doctrine of union 
with Christ is made to throw light on every one of the-e 
practical questions. Factions are inconsistent with it; im- 
purity is destructive of it; marriage acquires a spiritual aud 
mystical nature in virtue of the sanctification of the family life 
in Christ; eating meat offered to idols brings the man into 
sacramental union with demons, the antagonists of Christ; the 
Lord’s Supper is the emblem of union and the means of com- 
munion with Christ’s body and blood; finally, the headship 
of Christ over a restored humanity, based on His union with 
humanity, implies a subordination in the Church that demands 
order even in the assemblies, and brings about in the end a 
subjection of all created things to Christ that assures us of 
victory over death. 


1 « Toute la construction de l apdtre repose, en derniére analyse, sur une 
identification mystique entre Jésus et les croyants.’’—Sabatier, aren) Paul, 
deuxieme ed., p. 279. 


INTRODUCTION. Xxiil 


§ 20. All this is conceived in right Platonic fashion. The 
question whether the Apostle fought with weapons borrowed 
from Plato’s armoury, and was acquainted with the writings of 
Aristotle and the Stoics, will never, perhaps, be set at rest.! 
His language was not moulded by them to anything like the 
same degree in which it betrays the influence of Polybius. 
The seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans contains more 
than one Aristotelian conception, and there cannot be much 
doubt that the ruling ideas of the Greek schools had reached 
him. Hellenism was in the air. Aristobulus in Alexandria 
had long ago proclaimed himself a disciple of Aristotle, and 
led the way to the study of Greek philosophy.? ‘The influence 
of Stoicism, again, is to be seen in Philo and the “ Book 
of Wisdom.” Alexandria in turn influenced Jerusalem, and 
Hellenic thought leavened in some measure all the Jewish 
communities in which the Greek language was spoken. That 
the Apostle was well acquainted with Philo’s writings is 
certain.? Now what the ideais to Plato,and what the Wisdom 
and Word is to Philo and the author of the ‘Book of Wisdom,” 
that Christ is to St. Paul no less than to St. John. But, 
whereas Plato’s idea transcended existence, aud the Alexan- 
drian conception of God’s Wisdom and Word is the poetical 
personification of an attribute, the ideal Christ of St. Paul is 
identical with the historical Jesus, who once diced of weakness 
and rose from the dead in power, as the Spirit, the Lord, the 
glorified Redeemer, the new beginning of humanity. This 
saves the Apostle from the deadening effect of abstractions. 
He is in no danger of identifying God with τὸ ὄν, or of cou- 
founding, as was done by Philo and long afterwards by the 
Schoolmen, logical distinctions with differences of things. In 
his entire freedom from the tyranny of numbers and notiuns, 
in his thoroughly practical tone, he stands aloof from the herd 
of ancient thinkers, and writes in the modern spirit. Pre- 
disposed by a certain impetuosity of character and a natural 


1 Jerome (In Galat. iv. 24) says St. Paul’s own words prove that he had an - 
imperfect knowledge of secular literature. 

2 Euseb., Prep. Evang. VIII. ix. 23, et al. 

3 The reader will find a lucidly written discussion on the relation of St. 
Paul to Philo in Blanc-Milsaud’s tude sur L’Oriyine et le Développement de la 
Théologie Apostolique. Paris, 1884. 


XXIV INTRODUCTION. 


bent for active life and intercourse with men, he had no 
difficulty in throwing a bridge over the chasm between idea 
and person, theory and fact, when he so vividly realized to 
himself that God is become man, and that the crucified Jesus 
is the ‘‘ second Man from heaven,” now in heaven the quicken- 
ing Spirit. 

§ 21. Other Epistles are equally rich in spiritual thought, 
and some strike a higher key; but no portion of the New 
Testament discusses so directly the moral problems of that 
age or of our own. Yet few moralists of the present day 
would suggest the Apostle’s point of view in proposing reme- 
dies for the debasing evils of society. His idea of sin is not 
that of a utilitarian, be he theorist or legislator. Nor, on the 
other hand, would the advocates of an independent morality 
find weapons to their hand in the arsenal of St. Paul. His 
account of sin is true only if the doctrine of a mystical relation 
between the individual soul and the powers of the spiritual 
world is true. To the mind of the Apostle sin has all the 
strength of a law deeply rooted in human nature, bringing 
the soul under the control of demons and defiling the temple 
of the Holy Ghost. All sin is one; all goodness is one. The 
“world ”’ is an organised system of evil designed to overthrow 
the kingdom of God. Deliverance from sin is possible only 
through the interpenetration of the believer’s life by the super- 
natural life of Christ. Such conceptions find no place in the 
ethical systems of our day ; and the reason is not far to seek. 
We cannot arrive at them from the starting-point of a psycho- 
logical analysis. But they are the very core of the Apostle’s 
teaching, and the history of Christianity has proved again and 
again that, though these great thoughts have immeasurably 
elevated men’s moral ideal, they have been powerful to make 
men holy. 

§ 22. An unbiassed reader of early Christian literature will 
not be slow to acknowledge the wonderful largeness and sub- 
tlety of St. Paul’s Epistles. The difference between them and 
the writings of the sub-apostolic age, which yet drew their 
best inspiration from the Apostle, amounts to a contrast. In 
no portion of the New Testament is the contrast more appa- 
rent than in the First Hpistle to the Corinthians. St. Paul was 
not understood by the early Church, and in every instance his 


INTRODUCTION. XXV 


teaching is more balanced and—if the expression be not mis- 
interpreted—more advanced than that of his disciples. For 
example, the Church taught the doctrine of a literal resurrec- 
tion of the flesh,! a doctrine expressly rejected by the Apostle. 
But, when the early Christians in this way proclaimed their 
belief in the sanctity of redeemed matter, they discountenanced 
marriage, under the influence of the Oriental and Platonic 
doctrine that matter is essentially evil. The Apostle shows no 
trace of this influence, which constantly meets us in Philo. 
Matter has the capacity of being sanctified and glorified. Hx- 
ternal nature, far from being either defiling or defiled, yearns 
for its development into an adequate expression of the glory 
of the sons of God. In perfect harmony with this he teaches 
that the spiritual is not the natural, but has been introduced 
into the sphere of humanity as its formative and regulative 
principle. 

§ 23. The influence of our Epistle has, consequently, been 
broken and fitful. For some ages it failed to secure a leading 
position among St. Paul’s writings. When the controversies 
on Church discipline and morals began to sway the minds of 
thoughtful men, this Hpistle came to the front. The number 
of commentaries written upon it in the fourth century or 
thereabouts is not less surprising than the entire disappear- 
ance of most of them in subsequent times. In earlier ages 
we have scarcely anything with the exception of Tertullian’s 
(7. 240) comments in the Contra Macionem (V. 5-10). This 
treatise was written soon after 207 a.p., and is probably the 
- first attempt at a continuous exposition. It was designed to 
refute Marcion’s assertion that the teaching of St. Paul is 
inconsistent with that of the Old Testament. It is, therefore, 
we cannot say marred, but narrowed by specialty of purpose. 
Yet it is rich in original and striking thoughts, and occasion- 
ally offers a felicitous interpretation. Its classification of the 
spiritual gifts is an instance. 

§ 24. A commentary of Origen (d. 254) on the Epistle is 
mentioned in his seventeenth Homily on St. Luke: “ Memini 
cum interpretarer illud quod ad Corinthios scribitur”’ (p. 953). 
Discovered not long before in Paris, it was inserted by Cramer 
in his ‘‘Catena.”” In subtlety to find the clue to the more in- 

1 Cf. Tert. De Resur. 35; Ireneus, ddv. Her. V. xii. 3. 
Cc 


XXV1 INTRODUCTION. 


tricate connections of a passage it is worthy of Origen, one of 
the greatest, as he is also the first, of biblical critics. In the 
absence of allegorism it represents that side of Origen’s liter- 
ary influence which connects him with the School of Antioch. 
He stands alone among early writers in maintaining the spirit- 
ual nature of the resurrection body.t Yet he also is one-sided, 
in an opposite direction ; for he fails to see the consistency 
of a spiritual resurrection with the sanctity of marriage. 

§ 25. Jerome (Hp. 49, Ad Paminich.) tells us that copious 
commentaries on the Epistle were written by Origen, Diony- 
sius, Pierius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Didymus, and Apollinaris. 
Pierius is mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. Hecles. VII. 32) as a 
contemporary presbyter of Alexandria, distinguished for his 
exegetical works. One extract of Eusebius’ Commentary is 
given in the “ Catena”’ on iv. 5. It is interesting because it 
expresses what we may fairly suppose to have been the life- 
long feeling of Eusebius himself: Παραινεῖ μὴ σπουδαῖον 
ἡγεῖσθαι TO ἑαυτοὺς ἐκδικεῖν, μηδὲ TO κρίνειν τοὺς ἡμαρτηκέναι 
δοκοῦντας. Eusebius died about a.p. 540, Didymus was, no 
doubt, the “ blind seer,”’ who presided over the Catechetical 
School of Alexandria in Jerome’s time. He died a.p. 395. 

§ 26. Diodorus (d. 394), presbyter of Antioch, afterwards 
less illustrious as Bishop of Tarsis (Jerome, De Vir. Illustr., ο. 
119), is said to have been the founder of the Antiochian 
School of Interpreters. He wrote on St. Paul’s Epistles. 
But mere fragments in the Catenz are extant. The greatest 
expositor of the school was 'lheodore (ὦ. 429), Bishop of Mop- 
suestia.2 He made an effectual stand against the allegorical 
method of Alexandria. With the theological tendencies of his 
teaching we are not at present concerned. But what has been 
left of his very original exposition raises a regret that so little 
has survived. 

§ 27. Chrysostom (d. 407) was, like Theodore, a disciple of 
Diodorus, but stands somewhat apart from the Antiochian 
School. He did not altogether repudiate the allegorical 

1 De Princ. 11.10. But citations from this work of Origen must be accepted 
with caution. 

2 His exegetical fragments on the Epistle were collected by Fritzsche and 
published in the year 1847. For a careful estimate of Theodore as a commen- 


tator on St. Paul’s Epistles the reader should by all means consult Swetes 
‘‘Theodori Commentarii,’’ vol. I. pp. lix. sqq. 


INTRODUCTION. XXVil 


method. In his 39th Homily on our Epistle he actually 
condemns the grammatical and historical interpretation of 
Scripture in the natural sense, as an attempt ἀνθρωπίνως καὶ 
μὴ θεοπρεπῶς ἐκλαμβάνειν τὰ λεγόμενα. But his aim for 
the most part is to trace the logical connection of every 
passage, τὴν ἀκολουθίαν τῶν εἰρημένων. He is judicious 
without loss of vehemence, and practical without any sacrifice 
of theological dogma. Though occasionally rhetorical and at 
times even coarse, his ἘΠ ΤῊ are models of expository 
preaching.? The commentary of Theodoret (d. 457), Bishop 
of Cyros in Syria, is very brief, and is borrowed mostly from 
Chrysostom. His fault is dogmatic partiality. Thus he finds 
in the word ἐκ (ii. 12) the doctrine of the Spirit’s procession, 
and in the words “‘ Christ is God’s ” (iii. 23) the doctrine of a 
personal subordination within the Trinity. 

§ 28. Equally brief and less able are the notes of the 
celebrated Pelagius, inserted among Jerome’s works. But 
Jerome himself says, in his “ Catalogue,” that he wrote only 
on Galatians, Philemon, Ephesians, and Titus. Augustine re- 
peatedly cites the book as the work of Pelagius. For instance, 
in De Peccat. Merit. 111. he ascribes to Pelagius the note on 
1 Cor. vii. 14. It is not, however, altogether surprising that 
the book should have been assigned to Jerome, who held the 
synergistic or semi-Pelagian doctrine. The author writes as if 
the Apostle were consciously refuting the heresies of Apolli- 
naris and Arius. He makes him teach the doctrines of free 
will, of the dependence of a continuance in a state of grace on 
men’s continuing to obey God’s commands, of salvation not be- 
ing by faith aloue; and of faith meriting the gift of the Spirit. 

§ 29. Ambrosiaster is the conventional name of an unknown 
Latin expositor of St. Paul’s Hpistles. He is so named because 
his work was formerly ascribed to the great Archbishop of 
Milan.2 We know from his note on 1 Tim. iii. 154 that the 


1 Simon’s remark (Fist. Crit. p. 179) that Chrysostom “" évite les allegories 
et tout ce qui est trop éloigné du sens literal’? needs qualifying. 

2 An interesting comparison between him and Theodore will be found in 
Forster's ‘‘ Chrysostomus in seinem Verhiltniss zur Antiochenischen Schule” 
(Gotha, 1869). 

3 The Benedictine editors have published it in the form of an Appendix to 
the Works of Ambrose. 

4 « Ecclesia tamen domus ejus dicatur, cujus hodie rector est Damasus.” 


XXVIll INTRODUCTION. 


book was written in the episcopacy of Damasus, that is, 
between the years 366 and 384. It is now generally ascribed 
to the Roman deacon Hilary (who died after the year 380), 
because Augustine (Contra Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum, IV. 
7) cites as the words of a Hilary Ambrosiaster’s comment on 
Rom. v.12. The exposition of our Epistle is brief, but minute 
and, with the exception of some obscure places, to the point. 
Apparently influenced by Origen in forming his theological 
doctrines, Ambrosiaster is, nevertheless, entirely free from 
allegorism. For instance, in his note on v. 8 he rejects 
Origen’s allegorical use of the word “ passover,” though, by 
the way, he falls into error in his attempt to correct his deriva- 
tion of the word: “ Pascha itaque immolatio est, non transitus, 
sicut quibusdam videtur.” His strength lies in detecting the 
luks of thought. In this he excels most of the ancient 
expositors, But he lacks perspective, as in his note oni. 13, 
where he refers to the heretics of his own time as if the Apostle 
had them in his mind. The commentary which used to be 
ascribed to Anselm, Archbishop of Canterbury, but is now 
thought to have been written by a monk Hervzeus! in the 
twelfth century, or else by Anselm of Laon, is in many passages 
tuken word for word from Ambrosiaster. 

§ 80. Theselected notes of John Damascene on this Epistle, 
in the former half of the eighth century, are taken from 
Chrysostom. Damascene is not the first, but he is one of 
the best, of the compilers. Sedulius was perhaps the worst.? 
(icumenius, Bishop of Tricca in Thessaly in the tenth century, 
borrows from Chrysostom, Severian, Theodoret, and especially 
Vhotius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Theophylact, Archbishop 
of Acris in Bulgaria in the eleventh century, gives Chrysostom’s 
interpretations, with an occasional excellent note that has the 
appearance of originality. 

§ 31. The most independent commentator on St. Paul in 
the middle ages is Aquinas (d. 1274), though he draws largely 
from Augustine. In his Exposition of the First Epistle to the 
Corinthians the reader is not vexed with “allegorical, moral, 
anagogical”’ senses. He explains the literal meaning “ quem 


1 In the following pages the book is referred to as the production of Her- 
veous. 
2 His remark that Chloe was a city in Greece was, we may suppose, original. 


INTRODUCTION. XXIX 


auctor intendit.”! Rosenmiiller? alleges that the ecommen- 
taries of Aquinas are all “ congesta ex patribus,”’ and that he 
is altogether unworthy the name of interpreter. I am unable 
to concur in this opinion. But it must be confessed a perusal 
of the book is no help to credit the story that St. Paul vouch- 
safed to appear to him and tell him that none had so well 
understood his Epistles. | Aquinas is above all things a dog- 
matist, who seeks and, therefore, finds the doctrines of medizeval 
Christianity expressed in the Apostle’s words or underlying 
them, and makes Scripture fit into the scholastic framework. 
An egregious instance, in which, however, he is followed by 
De Lyra, of this departure from the “ intentio Apostoli” is 
the ingenious scheme of doctrines that accounts, as Aquinas 
thinks, for the order in which St. Paul’s Epistles are arranged 
in the canon. He admits that the Epistle to the Romans was 
not the first written ; but it occupies the foremost place ““ qnia 
hoc exigit ordo doctrine,” because in this Epistle the founda- 
tion of Christian theology is laid in the doctrine of grace. 
Next follows the doctrine of the sacraments as the media of 
grace, and this he considers to be the leading truth in the 
First Epistle to the Corinthians.? His remarks on the dissen- 
sions in the Corinthian Church are very characteristic of a 
writer that really expounds his own times, and does not in any 
true sense understand the Apostle’s point of view. But he 
often pierces deep into the Apostle’s thoughts. What he says, 
for example, on ii. 15, as to the influence of a spiritual disposi- 
tion on the judgment contains noble and profound exegesis. 

§ 32. Nicolaus de Lyra (d. 13840), a Franciscan monk of 
Normandy, has the reputation of having given a more scientific 
turn to the interpretation of Scripture.® He certainly antici- 
pated some of Bengel’s happy suggestions (cf. note on i. 30) ; 
and the right understanding of vii. 16 is due to him. He owes 
his fame partly to the high esteem in which Luther held his 


1 Cf. Summa,” P. I., Q. I. Art. X. 

2 “ Hist. Interpret.” P. V. p. 276. A more just, though perhaps too partial, 
estimate of Aquinas as an interpreter of Scripture will be found in Vaughan’s 
** Life and Labours of St. Thomas of Aquin”’ (1872), vol. ii. pp. 567-602. 

3 Cf. his “ Prologns.” 

4 For instance: ‘ Putabant a meliori baptisté meliorem baptismum dari, 
quasi virtus baptist in baptizatis operaretur.” 

5 Cf. Reuss, Geschichte d. Heil. Schriften, Ὁ. 556. 


XXK INTRODUCTION. 


Commentary on the Book of Genesis. But if it is true that 
Luther would not have danced had not this “lyre”? played, it 
is no less true that De Lyra borrows much from Aquinas, to 
whom he is inferior in penetration. 

§ 53. The Renaissance, by putting the expositor of Scrip- 
ture in possession of ancient Greek literature and the original 
language of the New Testament, created a classical taste, 
started the grammatical study of Greek, and paved the way 
to the comparative point of view, which is the best feature of 
ourownage. The father of scientific criticism applied to the 
New Textament, and, after a lapse of a thousand years, the 
immediate successor of Jerome, is Valla (d. 1457), whose 
““ Annotationes’’ was edited after his death by Erasmus and 
published in the year 1505. Valla was the first to compare 
the Vulgate with Greek manuscripts. One of the earliest 
exponents of the critical spirit north of the Alps was Colet 
(7. 1519). His lectures on St. Paul’s Epistles were delivered 
in Oxford each successive term, beginning probably with the 
First Epistle to the Corinthians in 1496.1 His transcendent 
merit is that, filled with heartiest veneration for the Apostle, 
and having very direct and deep religious feelings, he caught 
somewhat of his spirit.? But his exposition of the 12th chapter 
of our Epistle is disfigured with fanciful analogies—traces of the 
Neoplatonism of his Florentine teachers, Ficino and Mirandola 
—between the hierarchy of angels and the harmony of the 
revolving crystalline spheres.® 


ὃ 34. From Colet Erasmus (ὦ. 1536) gradually learned to 


1 His lectures on 1 Corinthians were edited by Lupton and published with 
an English translation in 1874, 

2 Cf. Seebohm’s Oxford Reformers, pp. 1-20. ‘‘He bronght to his uni- 
versity,’’ says Lupton, ‘‘the tidings of a Newfoundland, in religion and learning, 
as real as that discovered in the physical world by Sebastian Cabot” (Introd. 
to Colet on Romans, p. xiv.). 

3 In Green's History of the English People (bk. V. ch. ii.) it is said that 
Colet was “ utterly untouched by Platonic mysticism.” This is not altogether 
correct. Cf. Colet on 1 Corinthians, pp. 127 sqq.; Seebohm, wt sup., p. 61. It 
would appear to be a mistake also to credit Colet with knowledge of Greek on 
his return from Italy. Cf. Hallam, Literary History, P. Τ. chap. iv. ὃ 30 
note. In his exposition of chap. xiii. he pens a few words in Greek letters. 
But in his note on x. 22 he is misled by the word cmulamur in the Vulgate, and 
explains the meaning to be that by going to heathen feasts we do not ‘‘emulate” 
the Lord. 


INTRODUCTION. XXXI 


break away from the fascination of allegorism, and find in the 
listorical method the only guarantee for the living power of 
Scripture. His edition of the Greek Testament with Aunota- 
tions was published at Basle in the year 1515. His Paraphrase 
of the First Epistle to the Corinthians appeared in 1519, the 
year in which Colet died. The notes of Erasmus are remark- 
able for candour and a boldness of utterance which his after 
life did not maintain.! They are often directed against the 
monks, as in his remarks on xiv. 19. 

§ 35. Cajetan (ὦ. 1534) also represents the reaction against 
allegorism. He professes to expound “ juxta sensum litera- 
lem.”? But it is abundantly evident from his book that he 
knew but little Greek. 

§ 36. Providentially the classical Renaissance was followed 
by a reformation of religion. ‘Theology asserted her claims as 
well as grammar. The greatest expositor of the sixteenth 
century was produced by the united influence of learning and 
piety. Calvin’s Commentary on Corinthians bears date 1546. 
Profound thoughtfulness, sobriety of judgment, fearless honesty, 
fine culture, and instinctive sense of proportion, all meet in 
this prince of commentators. In expounding St. Paul he holds 
converse with a kiadred spirit. Perhaps the only qualification 
for such a task in which we may suppose him to have been 
deficient is passion. The light is clear and deep, but dry and 
cold. To appreciate Calvin we need only contrast his “ per- 
spicuous brevity’? with the more ambitious and showy com- 
mentaries of Musculus and Peter Martyr, or his judicial fairness 
with his friend Beza’s theological partisanship. The acknow- 
ledged superiority in exegesis of the early Reformed Church 
over the Lutherans is due to the influence of Calvin’s method 
quite as much as to its fundamental doctrine, that the interpre- 
tation of Scripture must be entirely independent of all Church 
authority. Denial of this independence trammelled Lutheran 


1 Cf. Drummond, Erasmus, vol. I. pp. 307 sqq. 

2 Cf. his Dedication to Charles V. 

% Estius (on 1 Cor. xv. 56) says that Cajetan knew no Greek, though he was 
otherwise a very learned man. But in his note on vi. 2 Cajetan corrects the 
Vulgate rendering of κριτηρίων, and explains further that the Greek word for 
secularia means “ pertinentia ad usum vite.” Lower down he says that the 
Greek for sub nullius redigar potestatem is of the same derivation as the word 
rendered licent. Did he depend on Erasmus ? 


XXX INTRODUCTION. 


divines down to the time of Bengel and even of Ernesti, who 
died in 1781. Calvin’s influence on English exegesis has 
always been immense. His method, and even his interpreta- 
tions, were handed down from one expositor to another, and 
men, some of whom had evidently never read him, learned from 
Calvin how to understand Scripture. What Chrysostom was 
to the exegesis of medizeval Catholicism, that Calvin has been 
to Protestantism down to the burst of exegetical insight in 
Schleiermacher. This is more especially true of England, 
though his Commentaries are said to have been themselves 
little read in Germany or England before Tholuck! drew 
attention to their merits. Calvin died in 1564. 

§ 37. It may appear strange that, with one partial ex- 
ception, we have no Puritan commentary on this Epistle.* 
The exception is the sensible, but unoriginal, “ Annotations ” 
of the Westminster Assembly. The truth is, the Puritans 
achieved nothing great in interpretation, with the sole ex- 
ception of Dr. Owen’s “ Exposition of the Hebrews.” The 
questions discussed in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 
and the method of handling lie for the most part outside the 
range of Puritan theology. It is a remarkable fact that the 
English Reformers of the Puritan type were sorely displeased 
with even Calvin’s Commentary on this Epistle. ‘‘ His Com- 
mentaries on the First Epistle to the Corinthians displeased 
me exceedingly,” writes Hooper to Bucer in the year 1548.° 
He does not say what in particular offended him. We may, 
however, conjecture that it had reference to the use of things 
indifferent. Calvin charges those men with folly who allow 
Christians scarcely any liberty, and thus lays himself open to 
the suspicion of being an Adiaphorist. Hooper, on the other 
hand, went beyond Ridley, Bucer, and even Peter Martyr in 
his refusal to wear the vestments as things indifferent. How- 
ever this may be, four years after the appearance of Calvin’s 
Commentary, Peter Martyr, who belonged to the extreme 

1 Vermischte Schriften, 1839, zweiter Theil, pp. 330 sqq. A translation of 
Tholuck’s Essay appears in the volume of the Calvin Translation Society that 
contains the Commentary on Joshua (Edinburgh, 1854). 

2 I pass by Sclater’s Commentary, because, though he was Puritan in his 
sympathies, his book is scholastic in form and meagre in substance. It belongs 


to an age that had long before his time passed away. 
8 Original Letters (Parker Society), p. 48. 


INTRODUCTION. ΧΧΧΙΙΙ 


Puritan school, published, at the instigation of the famous 
John Cheke, an Exposition of the Epistle which was received 
in England with great applause.! Scaliger ranked Martyr 
next after Calvin as a theologian. His Commentary wears a 
scholastic garb. Yet he applies the Apostle’s teaching, as he 
understands it, to the settlement of the burning questions of 
his own day. He declares that no other Epistle had so close 
a bearing on the controversies of-his age. In saying this he 
refers apparently to the questions in dispute between Roman- 
ists and Protestants, not to the Puritan controversy. He 
denies all reference to purgatory in iii. 13. His theory of the 
Lord’s supper stands midway between Calvin’s and Zwingle’s ; 
for he maintains that a real union is effected through faith 
between the recipient and the body of Christ, but refuses to 
admit the mystery of a spiritual effluence flowing from the 
humanity of the exalted Christ into the person of the believer. 

§ 88. Of Roman Catholic expositors of this Epistle after 
the age of the Reformers the best, to my mind, is Hstius 
(d. 1613). He is original and independent, perfectly clear, 
and very judicial. His main defects are occasional digressions 
and a too evident wish to make the Apostle speak the lan- 
guage of Trent. Notwithstanding this, his commentary is 
correctly described by Reuss as a valuable exposition of St. 
Paul’s Epistles in the Augustinian sense. 

δ 89. Cornelius ἃ Lapide’s (ὦ. 1637) reputation rests mainly, 
so far as I can form an opinion, on his acquaintance with 
patristic literature. His remark on ii. 15, that the spiritual 
judgment will lead the spiritual man, who judges all things, to 
have recourse to the better judgment of the Church in obscure 
questions of faith and morals, is a notable instance of the 
influence of a pre-couceived theory in making an honest ex- 
positor say almost the very opposite of what the Apostle 
means. 

§ 40. Grotius (d. 1645) is the best of Dutch expositors. 
Valckenaer accuses him of purloining from Beza. It is easy 
to see that he had read Beza’s notes; and if he did borrow, 
he only followed Beza’s example, who owed much to Valla and 
Erasmus. Grotius differs from Beza quite as often as he 


-1 He had lectured on the Epistle in Naples some years before he came to 
this country. 


XXXIV INTRODUCTION. 


concurs in his interpretations. The difference is sometimes 
for the better, as on v. 4, but more frequently, it must be 
confessed, for the worse, especially in the direction of un- 
spiritualising the meaning, as when he explains the words 
“demonstration of power and of spirit” (ii. 4) to mean the 
gifts of healing and prophecy. Beza’s own explanation, that 
the words are a hendiadys for “ spiritual power,” is itself only 
less unsatisfactory. There is some truth in the remark that, 
if Cocceius saw Christ where He is not, Grotius refused at 
times to see Him where He is. 

δ 41. Bengel founded, and could found, no school. His 
marvellous felicities must ever remain inimitable. He is 
mighty to quicken thought. Reading him often acts like a 
charm; and unless the reader is well on his guard against the 
fascination, he is in some danger of actually surrendering his 
own power of thought. 

§ 42. The only influence on English exegesis comparable 
to that of Calvin has been exerted within the last fifty years 
by the great expositors of Germany. ‘The reaction that set 
in against the dreary negations and euhemerism of the earlier 
rationalists was the effect of the believing, fervid rationalism 
of Schleiermacher. It gave birth to Neander, Olshausen, De 
Wette, Meyer, and others. Of these first-rate expositors the 
most judicial, I venture to think, is De Wette (d. 1819), the 
most useful Meyer (d. 1873). Osiander is laborious and full, 
‘rather than suggestive. Hofmann is striking and original, 
‘but often painfully ingenious and fanciful. 

§ 43. Even this brief sketch cannot be concluded without 
‘mention of one who wrote no commentary. Εἰ. C. Baur, the 
‘founder of the Tiibingen School, has by his profound learning 
‘and creative thoughtfulness left his mark, whether we accept 
‘or reject his conclusions, on the exegesis of this Hpistle no 
‘less than of other books of the New Testament. Several 
important works on the life and theology of St. Paul have 
‘been written in recent years under his influence. Among 
commentaries the “Short Protestant Commentary”! of Lang 
-on our Epistle may be regarded as representing the school. 
Its point of view and general character will be understood 


‘It has been translated into English by F. H. Jones, B.A. (‘ Theological 
“Translation Fund’’). 


INTRODUCTION. XXXV 


from the following positions which it ascribes to the Apostle: 
1. When God made Adam, the earthly man, He also made 
a second man in heaven of heavenly material, His own Son. 
2. This pre-existing man came down upon earth, and assumed, 
instead of the heavenly body, another made of flesh and blood. 
3. The earthly body was left on the cross, and the former 
heavenly body again assumed. 4. Paul saw Jesus in a vision 
only, within the depths of an excited mental life. 5. By 
“flesh” the Apostle means the finite and material constitution 
of our bodies, and this he considers to be the source of im- 
perfection and sin. 6. Christ’s work is to set free the whole 
creation from its burden of finiteness. 7. From the Apostle” 
conception of the flesh arose his doctrine of marriage, which is 
allowed only as a remedy for incontinence. In all these points 
—we shall consider them in their proper places—Lang really 
follows the leading of Baur. The expository notes disappoint 
the hopes raised by Lipsius’s able introduction. 

§ 44. The name of the late Dean Alford (ὦ. 1871) deserves 
always to be mentioned with respect as one of the first to 
introduce into England some of the fruits of recent German 
exegesis. But he was greater as a textual critic than as an 
expositor. In his notes on Corinthians he relies too much on 
De Wette and Meyer. I make no remark on living English 
commentators, except that I desire to pay a tribute to the 
very original notes of Canon Evans, the scholarly little book 
of Mr. Lias, the carefully written works of Mr. Beet and 
Mr. Shore, and the popular expositions of Canon Farrar and 
Dr. David Brown. 








SUMMARY. 


Intropuctory: i. 1-9. 


First Division: Tue Factions ΙΝ tar Cuurce: i. 10-iv. 21. 


A. Statement of the Case: i. 10-12. 

B. First Argument: i. 13-11. 5. The Gospel is primarily 
and essentially the proclamation of a salvation through 
Christ. After a personal digression (i. 13-17) this is 
proved. 

(1) From the rature of the message: i. 17-25. 

(2) From the character of the Church : i. 26-81. 

(3) From the power of the ministry: ii. 1-5. 

C. Second Argument: 11. 6-1. 4. The Gospel is a Divine 
revelation through the Spirit. For— 

(1) Christianity is God’s wisdom: ii. 6-9. 

(2) God’s wisdom is inwardly revealed by the Spirit: ii. 
10-13. 

(8) The revelation of the Spirit is understood only by the 
spiritual man: 11. 14-iii. 4. 

D. Third Argument: 111. 5-20. God has appointed teachers 
and defined their work. 

(1) The Apostles and teachers are, not leaders of men, but 
servants of God: 11. 5-9. 

(2) What is taught must be in character with the Divine 
foundation and plan: 11. 10-15. 

(8) The worldly-wise teaching of party-leaders destroys 
God’s temple and incurs His displeasure: iii. 16-20. 

KR. Fourth Argument: iii. 21-23. The factions are incon- 
sistent with the prerogatives of the Church itself. 

F, Concluding Remarks: iv. 1-21. 


xxxvii 


XXXVIii SUMMARY. 


Sreconp Division :—Cuurcn DIscIPLINE: v. 1-vi. 20. 


A. The case of incest: v: 1-18. 

B. The practice of going to law before heathen tribunals: 
vi. 1-11. 

C. A statement of the difference between actions indifferent 
and actions in their very nature sinful: vi. 12-20. 


Tairp Driviston :—MArRIAGE AND CELIBACY: vii. 1-40. 


A. General statement: vii. 1-7. 
B. Application of the doctrine to particular cases: vii. 8-- 
38. 
(1) The case of a Christian that has never been married or 
is in a state of widowhood: vii. 8, 9. 
(2) The case of a Christian married to a Christian: vii. 10, 
1]. ᾿ 
(9) The case of a Christian married to an unbeliever that is 
willing to cohabit with the believer: vii. 12-14. 
(4) The case of a Christian married to an unbeliever that 
refuses to cohabit with the believer: vii. 15, 16. 
(Digression on Christian liberty, with special refer- 
ence— 
(a) To Circumcision: vii. 18, 19; 
(b) To Slavery: vii. 20-24.) 
(5) The case of virgins: vii. 25-38. 
(6) The case of widows: vii. 39, 40. 


Fourra Division :—ConcERNING THE EATING OF MEAT OFFERED 
TO IDOLS: vill. 1—xi. 1. 

A. The reconciliation of the two opposite Christian concep- 
tions of liberty and love: viii. 1-15. 

B. This reconciliation exemplified in the Apostle’s own con- 
duct: ix. 1-27. 

C. The dangers to which the Corinthians exposed themselves 
by partaking of the idol-feasts shown by the example of 
the Israelites: x. 1-14. 

D. Partaking of the idol-feasts inconsistent with partaking 
of the Lord’s Supper: x. 15-22. 

Ei. A practical summary of what has been said on the sub- 
ject: x. 23—xi. 1, 


SUMMARY. ΧΧΧΙΧ 


ΕΊΡΤΗ Division :—Censure or ΑΒΌΒΕΒ IN THE Cuurcn AssEM- 
BLIES: xi. 2-34. 
A. In reference to women praying with head uncovered: 
xi, 2-16. 
B. In reference to the Lord’s Supper: xi. 17-34. 


Sixta Diviston :—Tue Sprrirvan Girrs: xii. 1-xiv. 40. 
A. Description and Vindication of the Spiritual Gifts: xi. 
1-31. 
B. The Praise of Love: xiii. 1-15. 
C. Superiority of Prophecy over Tongues: xiv. 1-40. 


SeventH Division :—Tue ResurRecrion oF THE Drap: xv. 1-58. 


A. That the Gospel which the Apostle preached rested on — 
the facts of Christ’s death and resurrection, facts proved 
by eye-witnesses: 1-11. 

B. The denial of the resurrection of the dead involves our 
denying the resurrection of Christ : 12-19. 

C. Direct Proof: The resurrection of the dead necessary 
that the Christian order of the subjection of all things to 
Christ may be realized: 20-34. 

D. The Proof confirmed by analogies: 35-44. 

BK. The Proof confirmed by Scripture: 45-49. 

F. The change from psychical to spiritual necessary and uni- 
versal: 50-54. 

G. Refrain of triumph and concluding exhortation: 55-58. 


Eicutu Diviston :—Sunpry PEersonat AND INcIDENTAL MATTERS: 
xvi. 1-24. 


A. Of the Collection for the Church in Jerusalem: 1-4, 

B. Of the Apostle’s intention to come to Corinth: 5-9. 

C. Of the coming of Timotheus and Apollos to Corinth: 
10-12, 

Ὁ. A summary of the practical lessons of the Epistle: 18, 
14. 

E. A kindly recommendation of Stephanas and others to 
their brotherly regard: 15-18. 

F. Salutations: 19, 20. 

G. Concluding warning and prayer: 21-24. 





A COMMENTARY 


ON THE 


FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


INTRODUCTORY. 
(i. 1-9). 


Ch. I. 1-3. Salutation. The Apostle vindicates his au- 
thority to address his readers, and acknowledges their claim 
upon him, as the Church of Christ. The attributes of the 
Church here mentioned correspond to the attributes of the 
apostleship. If he is a called apostle, they are called saints; 
if he is Christ’s, they are sanctified in Christ; if he is an 
apostle through the will of God, they are the Church of God. 

κλητός. Cf. Rom.i. 1. The same notion is expressed in 
1 Timothy i. 1, by κατ᾽ ἐπιταγὴν Θεοῦ. It is almost certain 
the word contains an allusion to the historical incident of 
his hearing the authoritative voice of Jesus on the way to 
Damascus. St. Paul nowhere separates his conversion from his 
apostleship. The word, therefore, while expressing personal 
humility (Chrys., Theophyl. on Rom. i. 1), is an assertion of 
the Divine authority of his office. But we must not suppose, 
with Meyer, that his having been “ called” distinguished St. 

Paul’s apostleship from that of the others, who are supposed 
- to have come to Christ of their own choice, or been led to- 
him by accidental circumstances. They also were called (ef. 
Matt. iv. 21; John vi. 70). But St. Paul vindicates his apostle- 
ship by saying that he was called no less directly by Christ 
Himself (cf. Gal. i. 12-16). He emphasizes the directness of 
his call, partly because it made him a witness for the resur- 
rection of Jesus (cf. xv. 8; Acts xxvi. 16), partly because it 
conveyed to him his peculiar commission to preach to the 
Gentiles (cf. ix. 1; 2 Cor. xii. 1). It was a new starting-point 

Β. 


9 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


in the history of Christianity. It rang the knell of Judaism 
within the Church, and made Christianity a religion for the 
race and the ages. This second beginning was inaugurated 
with a miraculous call. 

᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Genit. not only of the agent (“sent by 
Jesus Christ’’), but also of possession. Cf. Rom. 1. 1; Acts 
xxii. 8, ζηλωτὴς τοῦ Θεοῦ,  God’s zealot.” 

ἀπόστολος. We observe the rise of the properly Christian . 
usage of the word in Mark iii. 14, ἵνα ἀποστέλλῃ αὐτοὺς 
κηρύσσειν. Christ adopted it as the official name of the 
Twelve (cf. Luke vi. 18). The words κλητός and ἀπόστολος 
express the two opposite sides of one act of Christ. He 
called men to Himself out of the world in order to send them 
forth into the world. The idea, but not the word, occurs also 
in St. John’s writings. Cf. John xvii. 18.1 

διά. Cf. Gal. i. 1, where ἀπό expresses the source of his 
apostleship, διά the instrumentality by which his apostolical 
authority was actually bestowed upon him, Even in διὰ Θεοῦ, 
διά is not used loosely for ἀπό. It means that God acted 
directly. His own will was the only instrument of His action. 
᾿ῬΘέλημα and θέλησις do not occur in classical Greek. 

Σωσθένης. De Wette, Meyer, etc., think this Sosthenes 
cannot have been identical with the ruler of the synagogue 
mentioned in Acts xviii. 17, because, in that case, we should 
have to make the gratuitous assumption that the Corinthian 
Sosthenes had accompanied the Apostle to Ephesus. But 
why, otherwise, is he mentioned here? He may have been 
the Apostle’s amanuensis. But Tertius, his amanuensis, is not 
named as joint writer of the Epistle to the Romans. 

ὁ ἀδελφός. It is interesting to mark, in Acts and the 
Epistles, the almost unconscious adoption by the Church of 
‘tthe few names which Christ had borrowed from the Jews, 
while He infused into them a deeper meaning ‘(cf. Matt. v. 
ΑἹ; xxiii. 8). The Church is not only a πόλιες, but also οἶκος 
@cod (cf. Eph. 11. 20; 1 Tim. iii. 15; Heb. ii. 10-17; Col. 
i. 2). The abstract term ἀδελφότης soon came into use in 
a collective sense, “the brotherhood” (cf. 1 Pet.ii.17; Clem., 
Ad Cor. 2). 


1 If the fourth Gospel had been written in the second century, the name 
«ἀπόστολος would not have been absent from it, 


INTRODUCTORY.—I. 1, 2. 3 


V. 2. Three notes of the Church are mentioned. Jirst, 
itis God’s. Θεοῦ is genit. of possession; not to distinguish 
the Church from the heathen ékxAncfac—a name never used in 
profane Greek to denote a religious assembly—but to distinguish 
it from the κόσμος, which is the antagonist of the kingdom 
and out of which the Church is called. Though the name 
ἐκκλησέα was most probably borrowed from the clubs or asso- 
ciations of the time, the Apostle discovers in it a Christian 
idea, that of separation from the world. To say that the 
Church is an ἐκκλησία is to say that it is God’s. Second, as 
the result of its being an ἐκκλησία. the Church is “ sanctified” 
(cf. John xvii. 16-19). The primary meaning is consecration. 
The Christian Church enters into the place hitherto occupied 
by the Jewish Church. But consecration in its Christian form 
resolves itself into holiness. Christ takes possession of every 
morality and raises it into spirituality. All goodness becomes 
a religion, binding the soul to God. ‘Ev means that believers 
not only are sanctified “through the offering of the body of 
Jesus Christ” (Heb. x. 10), but also continue holy in virtue 
of union with Christ (cf. Rom. xv. 16). Third, the Church 
consists of men who are “called to be saints.” They are 
saints by reason of a Divine call from without as well as of 
a Divine operation within (cf. Rom. 1.6; Lev. xxiii. 2). In 
Barn., Ep. iv. 18, the words ὡς κλητοί refer to the. future 
kingdom. The notion of saintship is in Scripture inseparable 
from that of being reckoned, of being allotted a place by God. 
Cf. Wisd. v. 5, πῶς κατελογίσθη ἐν υἱοῖς Θεοῦ καὶ ἐν ἁγίοις 
ὁ κλῆρος αὐτοῦ ἐστιν; 

ἡγιασμένοις is plur. in apposition to the sing. ἐκκλησίᾳ by 
what the grammarians call σχῆμα κατὰ τὸ σημαινόμενον. 

oven, redundant; a frequent Hellenistic usage, as in Acts 
xii. 1, et al. Cf. also Xen., Hellen. I. i. 27, τὴν ὑμετέρων 
προθυμίαν καὶ κατὰ γῆν καὶ κατὰ θάλατταν ὑπάρχουσαν. 

σὺν καιτιλ. That ἐπικαλεῖσθαι here means “to pray to 
Christ,” not “to call themselves by the name of Christ” 
(Hammond, Locke, Semler), is proved from Zechariah xii. 9, 
αὐτὸς ἐπικαλέσεται TO ὄνομα μου, κἀγὼ ἐπακούσομαι. Celsus 
reproached the Christians with praying to Christ (cf. Orig., 
6. Cels. viii. 13). The first Christian prayer uttered in the 
_ hearing of Saul of Tarsus was addressed to the Lord Jesus 


4 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


(cf. Acts vii. 59). Origen held that prayer should not be made 
to Christ, and he read in our ver. ‘ qui invocant nomen Domini” 
(cf. Hom. 18 in Luc.). The Apostle writes to the Church in 
Corinth and to all that pray to Christ (cf. 2 Cor.i.1; ix. 2). 
The Church in the capital city of the province was perhaps the 
only visible centre. For example, there does not seem to have 
been at this time a Church in Athens. But many individual 
Christians were scattered through Achaia. The Apostle’s ex- 
pression implies that some believers were not enrolled in the 
visible communion of the Church, and he certainly does not 
unchurch them (cf. Luke ix. 49, 50). The external badge of 
a Christian society had not yet acquired the significance that 
attaches to it in the Epistle to the Hebrews (x. 25) and the 
Epistle of Jude (19). Living and working for Christ apart 
from the main body would in time assume the character of 
eccentricity, impracticableness and even heresy. (Cf. Ignat., 
Trall. vii. 2; Tert., De Prescr. Her. 42). Such men would 
be ἐψωριακότες (Herm., Past. iii. 6). But the Apostle in- 
cludes them among those to whom his letter is addressed. 
He thus connects the Corinthian Christians with the universal 
Church, to excite in them a lively realization of their one- 
ness with all believers; for that oneness is symbolised and 
strengthened by the common act of all Christians, prayer to 
Christ. ; 

αὐτῶν Kat ἡμῶν. Te is omitted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., 
Westc. and Hort, after αὶ BD. If τε is inserted, the words 
_ may mean ‘“‘ whether it belongs to them or to us;” but αὐτῶν 
᾿ καὶ ἡμῶν must mean “ belonging as it does both to them and 
tous.” (Cf. Hartung, Partikell. vol. i. p. 100. Cf. Rom. xvi. 
13). The words are to be connected with τόπῳ (so Osiand., 
Meyer, De Wette, Heinrici), not with Κυρίου (Chrys., Theod., 
Erasm., Billroth, Olshaus., Rev. Version). For the Apostle’s 
purpose is to bring into prominence the universal character of 
the Church and, consequently, his right and duty to address 
them. Every place where Christians are belongs as such to 
the Apostle as well as to them. 

V. 3. The Greek and the Jewish salutations are joined, but 
in a spiritual sense, which is suggested by the change of χαέρειν 
into χάρις. The occurrence of the peculiar phrase “ grace and 
peace,” in St. Paul, St. John, and St. Peter, intimates that we 


INTRODUCTORY.—I. 2-4. 5 


have here the earliest Christian password or symbolum. Grace 
is the source, peace the consummation. ‘The two together 
comprehend all the gifts of the Spirit. In the εἰρήνη πᾶσιν, 
pat vobiscum, of the early Church, peace includes all. (Cf. 
Tert., c. Mure. v. 5; Chrys., Hom. 3 in Ool.). As God, whom 
all acknowledge to be Lord, is here designated Father, so the 
man Christ Jesus is designated Lord (cf. note on viii. 6). 

Vv. 4-9. An epistle fraught with rebuke opens—the 
salutation over—with an expression of thankfulness to God 
for the wealth of spiritual gifts bestowed on the Corinthian 
Church. The foundation of all their endowments was the 
gift of sonship (ver. 9), or mystical union with Christ, given 
them once for all (aor. δοθείσῃ) at their conversion. Hyven 
now the gifts of the Spirit were not lacking, especially the two 
gifts of discernment and utterance. These are specified here, 
because it was abuse of them that more than anything else 
led the Corinthians so far astray. Spiritual discernment had 
degenerated into worldly cleverness. Utterance was misused 
to decry the Apostle and serve the spirit of party jealousy. 
““ Nevertheless God will re-establish in their hearts the witness 
of the Gospel, so that none will have aught to lay to their 
charge, as the Apostle now has.” 

V.4. εὐχαριστεῖν does not occur before Polybius. Its 
occurrence in a psephism in Dem., De Cor. p. 257, is one proof 
of spuriousness. The class. phrase is χάριν εἰδέναι. 

pou is omitted in δὲ (first hand) and B. So Weste. and 
Hort. But A and the first corrector of δὲ, who was nearly 
coeval with the scribe, insert it. So Lachm., Tisch., Tree. Cf. 
Phil. i. 8. Thus to appropriate God is characteristic of the 
highest spiritual lives. It is the other side of consecration to 
God. To κοινὸν ἰδιοποιούμενοι is Chrysostom’s fine expression 
(Hom. 2 in Rom.). The Apostle thanks his God for the grace 
supplied to the Corinthians, as if their grace were an addition 
- tohisown. This is the force of μου. 

περί, “for;” Vulg. rightly, pro; Beza less correctly, de. 
So Rev. Vers. has “ concerning,” though it renders it by “ for” 
in 1 Thess. iii. 9. 

ἐπί, with dat. denoting the basis on which an action rests. 
The local signification is used ethically. Cf. Aischyl., Prom. 
194, ποίῳ ἐπ’ αὐτιάματε αἰκίζεται. The several graces, for 


6 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the bestowal of which on the Corinthian Church the Apostle 
thanks God, are erected on the foundation grace, given them 
when they believed, which is union with Christ (cf. Phil.i. 5). 
The expression occurs in 1 Thess., but the notion is not subse- 
quently made use of in that Hpistle. (See Introd.) 

V.5. ἐπλουτίσθητε. The aor. covertly implies that they 
had since lost that wealth of grace and fallen into spiritual 
indigence (cf. Col. πὶ. 16). It is, therefore, unnecessary, as 
it is also incorrect, to suppose, with Chrysostom, that some 
only were enriched, or that it is, to use Augustine’s words, 
“ Scriptures mos ita loqui de parte tanquam de toto.” 

λόγος and γνῶσις are elsewhere found together. (Cf. xii. 8, 
λόγος γνώσεως). In 2 Cor. xi. 6 they are contrasted (cf. 
vill. 7). These passages show that λόγος is the utterance of 
Christian truth. (So Chrys., Theophyl., Bengel, Hofmann, 
Hodge, etc.) The two special gifts of the Corinthians consisted 
partly in the elevation and consecration of their national 
characteristics. Speech occupies no less prominent a place in 
the New Testament than it did among the Greeks. It has for 
its object to bear witness for Christ, and is a χάρισμα, a gift 
of God, for which the Apostle gives thanks. Christianity 
broke on the world as a new revelation, which, by being told 
and echoed on all sides, is powerful to regenerate men. This 
is the origin and life of preaching; for, as Pascal said, “‘ the 
saints have never been silent.” Calvin, De Wette, etc., 
understand λόγος in the sense of “ doctrine.” But a doctrine 
cannot be a χάρισμα bestowed on individuals, except in the 
form of γνῶσις, so that λόγος and γνῶσις would mean the same 
thing. In xii. 8 γνῶσις is distinguished from σοφία. Here 
it includes it and means all discernment of Christian truth. 

V. 6. καθώς, “inasmuch as;” as in v. 7; Rom. 1. 28. 
This illative use of καθώς and indeed καθώς itself are com- 
paratively late Greek, for xa@a. The cause of richness of 
spiritual endowment is a vivid, complete acceptance of God’s 
testimony concerning Christ. 

τοῦ Χριστοῦ, obj. genit., “ the testimony concerning Christ.” 
(Cf. Acts i. 8; 2 Tim. 1. 8, where μαρτύριον is explained by 
εὐαγγέλιον; Matt. xxiv. 14; Rev. xix. 10.) In favour of 
subj. genit. Bengel aptly refers to Acts xviii. 8, where it is 
said that many in Corinth “believed the Lord” (cf. Acts 


INTRODUCTORY.—I. 4—7. mi 


xiv. 3). But belief in the testimony which Christ gave, 
whether we understand it of the confession which He made 
through His sufferings (Phot.), or the revelation of God given 
by Christ (as in Rey. iii. 14), is not the acceptance which 
brings the believer into union with Christ. According to St. 
Paul, faith acts on Christ Himself, and- Christ it finds in the 
κήρυγμα of the Gospel. (Cf. π. 1.) 

ἐβεβαιώθη, not “was confirmed among you intellectually,” 
but “was established in you spiritually ;” “ firmiter per fidem 
cordibus inherens” (Aquinas). St. John has precisely the 
same idea (cf. 1 John iii. 19; v.10). That this is the mean- 
ing is evident from the use of βεβανώσει with ἀνεγκλήτους in 
ver. 8, as well as from the connection of the clause with ver. 5 
(cf. 2 Cor.i. 21; Col. ii. 7). Only so far as the testimony 
concerning Christ had taken deep root in their hearts were 
they enriched in utterance of it. We must, therefore, reject as 
quite inadequate, Theophylact’s explanation, “ through miracles 
and charismata.” 

Υ. ἡ. To be closely connected with ver. 6. Οὕτως may be 
mentally supplied with ἐβεβαιώθη. The testimony concerning 
Christ had been so deeply fixed in their hearts that, for atime, 
they were not impoverished in any gift. The pres, ὑστερεῖσθαι 
refers to the time covered by ἐβεβαιώθη, not to the time at 
which the Apostle was writing. They had been rich, but now 
they were impoverished in every grace. This interpretation 
lends force to the Apostle’s subsequent expression of confi- 
dence that God would again firmly establish them to the end. 

ὑστερεῖσθαι ἐν τινι is ‘‘ to be impoverished in a thing,” opp. 
to περισσεύειν, aS in Phil. iv. 12; ὑστερεῖσθαι τινος is * to 
want a thing altogether,” as in Rom. 111. 23. The word con- 
veys the notion of poverty, in contrast to ἐπλουτίσθητε, ver. 5. 
(cf. Luke xv. 14). The act. ὑστερεῖν is more usual in this 
sense in class. Greek. A reminiscence of the Apostle’s words 
occurs in Ignat., Smyrn. 1, ἀνυστερήτῳ οὔσῃ πώντος yxapic- 
patos. 

χαρίσματι. Hstius, Olshaus., Wordsworth are right in 
saying that χάρισμα always denotes a special gift, but wrong 
in adding that χάρις always denotes grace in general. (Cf. 
Eph. iii. 8; Barn., Lp. i. 2, τὴν ἔμφυτον τῆς δωρεᾶς πνευματικῆς 
χάριν εἰλήφατε.) 


8 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ἀπεκδεχομένους, “ inasmuch as ye were patiently expecting.” 
For the causal participle cf. Rom. iii. 24. The tense is im- 
perfect. Now, on the contrary, far from earnestly waiting for 
the coming of the Lord, some in the Corinthian Church denied 
the doctrine of the resurrection and of the kingdom of Christ. 
The Apostle represents the expectation of the Church for the 
Lord’s appearance as the highest attainment of a soul that 
fully realizes the truth of the testimony concerning Christ. 
But in its lower aspects this expectation is Jewish and seeks 
an earthly return ; in its better form, it is spiritual. Ἀπεκδέ- 
χεσθαι “ perseverante expectare notat.” (Fritzscho, on Rom, 
vill. 19.) 

ἀποκάλυψιν, that is, at Christ’s second coming. (Cf. 
2 Thess. 1.7; 1 Pet.i. 7,13.) The more usual word, παρουσία, 
denotes the fact of Christ’s presence; the rare word, ἐπιφάνεια, 
its visibility, as in 2 Thess. ii. 8; ἀποκάλνψρεις, its inner mean- 
ing. Ἐπιφάνεια 15 used of the incarnation, never ἀποκάλυψις. 
The nearest approach to it is in Luke ii. 82. Nothing shows 
more clearly the powerful influence of the thought of Christ’s 
speedy return on the Apostle’s spiritual life than its intro- 
duction into the opening sentences of the Hpistle. 

V.8. ὅς. That ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ is repeated at the end of 
the verse is not enough to prove that Christ is not here meant. 
(cf. Eph. iv. 12; 2 Thess. 11. 5). The reference of ὅς to God, 
ver. 4 (Estius, Bengel, Olshaus.),is too far. The repetition of 
ὁ Θεός, ver. 9, makes it probable that Christ is meant, who 
acts in God’s behalf. 

βεβαιώσει. An anticipatory allusion to the factions. The 
Corinthians were διακρινόμενου in St. James’s meaning of the 
word (i. 6). (Cf. Phil. i. 6; 1 Thess. v. 24; Heb. vi. 10. . Cf. 
φρουρουμένους, 1 Pet. i. 5.) 

ἕως τέλους, that is, to the end of the present eon, at the 
revelation of Christ. (Cf. x. 11; 1 Pet. i. 18; iv. 7.) 

᾿ἀνεγκλήτους, a proleptic brachylogy for εἰς τὸ εἶναι ὑμᾶς 
ἀνεγκλήτους. (Cf. Rom. viii. 29; Matt. xii. 13.) The word 
means, not “blameless in character,” but, ‘‘ free from any 
charge” (cf. Rom. viii. 83). So Hesych., dvev@vvos. It is, 
therefore, more forcible than ἄμεμηττος or ἄμωμος and virtually 
synonymous with ἀναμάρτητος (cf. Pseudo Justin M., Questt. 
et Respp. p. 489 D). It has a juridical reference. The revela- 


΄ 


INTRODUCTORY.—I. 7-9. 9 


tion of Christ will be a judgment of all men (cf. 1 John in. 2; 
Col. iii. 4; 1 Pet. 1.18; Heb. ix. 28; 1 Thess. iv. 15). It by 
no means implies that a Christian can be, as Meyer says, 
morally defective at the day of judgment (cf. 1 Thess. v. 23). 
Rather it implies that the end of this eon will be determined 
by moral reasons. The course of history is a moral develop- 
ment, and the cosmical development depends on that of the 
individual Christian. The Apostle means to intimate that 
the Corinthians were not yet free from charge. He has 
himself grave charges to make against them; and he will do it 
with an authority and power that removes the unbecomingness 
of the comparison between his displeasure and the future 
judgment of Christ. 

ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, not “unto,” as if the words were connected 
with βεβαιώσει (Estius), but “in,” to be connected with 
ἀνεγκλήτους. The word “day” continues the notion of a 
revelation. The present zon is the night (cf. Rom. xii. 12). 
But in the words “day of the Lord,” the additional notion of 
judement is always included. The two conceptions—light and 
judgment—blended (cf. ii. 18, iv. 5; Jude 6). 

V.9. The ground of the Apostle’s confidence that God 
will establish them unto the end, is God’s faithfulness to the 
work which He has already begun in calling them into union 
with his Son (ver. 4). 

πιστὸς ὁ Θεός, the δέ omitted rhetorically (cf. x. 13). Πιστός 
is explained in 2 Tim. 11. 18. 

ἐκλήθητε. He ends the introductory portion by reverting 
to the thought with which he began (ver. 4). Their restora- 
tion also will be a new work, rising sheer from the foundation 
of union with Christ. But the Apostle acknowledges one 
difference. What was at first God’s grace is now called God’s 
faithfulness to His own work begun. 

κοινωνία κ.τ.λ., not ‘fellowship in spirit with His Son,” 
but “ participation in Christ’s sonship” (cf. 1 Tim.i. 1). So 
Theod., κοινωνίαν yap υἱοῦ τὴν υἱοθεσίαν ἐκάλεσε. ‘This of 
itself is the proof that God will establish them to the end. 
Sonship involves a claim to privileges (cf. Rom. viii. 17; Gal. 
iii. 7). To establish them is, therefore, a matter of faithful- 
ness on the part of God. The mention of adoption is also, 
indirectly, a rebuke. Men who have been called to partici- 


10 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


pate in Christ’s sonship at variance with one another! The 
Apostle is preparing, as his manner is, for what is to come. 
Meyer and, apparently, Chrysostom, think κοινωνία refers to 
participation in the glory of Christ’s kingdom. The view is 
tenable only on the supposition that St. Paul uses the word 
υἱός in this Epistle, not in an ontological meaning, but simply 
us an official designation. To a Jew of the time of Christ the 
name “Son of God” seems certainly to have been synonymous 
with Messiah and King of Israel, not conveying necessarily 
the notion that Messiah would be a Divine person! (cf. Orig., 
ce. Cels. I. 49). So in John 1. 49; Matt. xxvi. 63; and the 
most probable meaning of Acts ix. 20, is that Paul preached 
immediately after his conversion, that Jesus (Ἰησοῦν is the 
better reading) was the Son of God, meaning the Christ, which 
is the name used in ver. 22, Admitting, however, all this, it 
is equally certain that in our Epistle υἱός is not a merely 
official designation. We find in it and in other Epistles of 
the same group, the doctrine of the Son’s pre-existence and 
ontological relation to the Father. Cf. viii. 6; xv. 47; Rom. 
vill. 32; 2 Cor. xii. 14; not to adduce other passages more 
or less fairly capable of being otherwise explained, as 1 Thess. 
i. 11. 

1 Some have held that the designation ‘“‘ Son of God” implied, not indeed in 
itself, but in reference to Messiah, a higher nature than human. 


FIRST DIVISION. 


------. 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. 
(i. 10-iv. 21). 


Curysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Ambrosiaster, Calvin, 
and Alford, maintain that the Apostle does not mean to allege 
that the Church of Corinth was divided into parties called ἡ 
after the names of Paul, Apollos, Cephas, Christ, but that he 
borrows these names in order to show, by a kind of hyperbole, 
the unreasonableness of faction. Chrysostom considers this 
proved by iv. 6. Certainly we have no ground for supposing 
with Eichhorn, Milman (History of Christianity, bk. 11. chap. 
3), Lewin, ete., that four separate communities had sprung 
up in Corinth. There was no schism in the ecclesiastical 
meaning of the word. But the course of the Apostle’s 
argument disproves Chrysostom’s inference. The Apostle 
endeavours to put an end to party spirit in the Church by 
explaining the real nature of the Christian ministry and the 
relation of all ministers to Christ; which shows that the dis- 
sensions in Corinth had direct reference to Christ and the 
teachers. We.have also the testimony of Clement of Rome, 
whose Epistle to the same Church was written before the end 
of the first century :—“’Em’ ἀληθείας πνευματικῶς ἐπέστειλεν 
[56. St. Paul] ὑμῖν περὶ ἑαυτοῦ τε καὶ Kydd τε καὶ Ἀπολλὼ, 
διὰ τὸ καὶ τὸτε προσκλίσεις ὑμᾶς πεποιῆσθαι i 
προσεκλίθητε γὰρ δ πὰ Mots μεμαρτυρημένοις καὶ ἀνδρὰ 
δεδοκιμασμένῳ παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς. Ad Cor. 47. 

Equally unsatisfactory is the view of Hofmann, that the 
Apostle is speaking of personal predilections for this or that 
teacher ; for Cephas, because he had been intimately connected 


with the founding of Christianity; for Paul, as founder of 
11 


12: THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the Corinthian Church ; for Apollos, on the score of learning 
and eloquence. This theory does not assign to the genitives 
Παύλου, Ἀποχλώ, Kya, their full force. “I belong to 
Paul,” or “I am Paul’s man,”? must mean more than admira- 
tion and personal preference. It must mean that the Apostle 
was represented as the leader of a party, the projector of 
distinctive ideas. Besides, those who claimed to be Christ’s 
cannot be supposed to have only a predilection for Christ. 

We are happily not called upon at present to follow the 
subtle windings of the Tiibingen theory. Whatever opinion 
we may form of its general correctness, it is enough for our 
purpose that at least the dissensions in Corinth do not justify 
the inference that the Church in the Apostolic age was divided 
into two hostile and irreconcilable camps, ranged under the 
active leadership of Apostles. For, first, the Apostle does not 
in this division of the Epistle address himself to the task of 
refuting fundamental errors, but censures party spirit as in- 
consistent with the nature of Christianity. Ingenious attempts 
have been made to assign to each party its share of error, but 
with very partial success. It is difficult to believe that the 
Apostle would have abstained from direct refutation of funda- 
mental errors, if such were at the time making havoc of the 
Church. In fact, no attentive reader can fail to observe the 
contrast between the affection that breathes in the first 
chapters of this Epistle, and the astonished indignation with 
which the Epistle to the Galatians begins, or the irony of his 
rebuke of the Corinthian laxity in discipline. Second—if an 
internecine war ravaged the Church in the first century, not 
to mention that traces of it would be discernible in the Epistle 
of Barnabas, Hegesippus could not allege, unless he were 
saying what he knew to be false—and Baur’s attempt to dis- 
credit him as an honest, however uncritical, witness for facts 
has completely failed—that the Corinthian Church remained 
during the Apostolic age “a pure and uncorrupted virgin,” 
and continued orthodox down to the episcopate of Primus. 
(Huseb., Hist. Eccles. iii. 82; cf. ibid. iv. 22). Nor could 
he, in speaking of a Church founded by St. Paul, mean that 
the Church was at peace in the sense of being entirely under 
Judaistic influence. His testimony, moreover, is confirmed by 
that of Clement of Rome, who says that, when he was writing 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH. 13 


(probably before 97 a.p.), their early dissensions had ceased." 
Besides, if the factions of the Apostle’s time had passed away 
before the end of the first century, more inferences than one 
follow. Baur’s theory that the reconciliation was effected in 
the second century, vanishes; the factions cannot have divided 
on vital questions; and their pacification cannot be ascribed 
to any other cause than St. Paul’s two Epistles—in which, 
however, fatal errors as to Judaism are not formally refuted. 
Still it can hardly be doubted that these dissensions repre- 
sented, in their broad outlines, the difference between Jewish 
and Gentile views. So far Baur is correct. Indeed the sug- 
gestion was long ago made in Lightfoot’s Hore Hebraice. 
The extreme views would be, on the side of Judaism, that, 
though Jesus was Messiah, the laws of Moses were not 
abrogated, and Gentiles, in order to become Christians, must 
first become Jews through circumcision; on the side of 
Hellenism, that Christianity was the best moral theory. An 
Ebionite would regard the work accomplished by Jesus of 
Nazareth as a revival of Mosaism and the world-wide expansion _ 
of a Divine institution hitherto restricted to one race. A Greek 
true to the spirit of the age would see in it the revelation 
of a Divine life. He would accept it because it satisfied the 
individualism, which had by this time stifled the old Greek 
idea of the πόλες no less in the teaching of the Academy than 
in that of Zeno or of Epicurus. In fact itis not difficult to 
trace even in Apostolic times the germs of Gnosticism. We 
know from Acts xviii. 24 that Apollos was a learned man 
(ἀνὴρ λόγιος) of Alexandria. But an educated man, ἃ Jew, 
brought up in Alexandria, especially one who fought his way 
unaided to the threshold of the faith, must, in that age, have 
been a disciple of Philo; and we may regard it as, to say the 
very least, extremely probable that Apollos had adopted, before 
his conversion, that combination of Judaism and Platonism 
which was designed to harmonize the Hebrew religion with 
Greek culture and philosophy. Add to this that, as Alexandria 
witnessed the attempt to fuse Jewish and Greek conceptions 
in a religious philosophy, a similar tendency, but starting from 


1 Gebhardt (Prolegg. in Clem. Ad Cor., § 6), infers that the controversies 
in the Apostolic Churches had been allayed when St. Paul was writing to the 
Philippians, a.p. 63, 


14 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


an opposite direction, was at work in Greece to transform 
philosophy into a religion. The tenets of the Paulinists, 
again, must have borne some resemblance to the Apostle’s 
doctrines of redemption, justification, faith, no doubt more or 
less ignorantly caricatured. As to the party that called itself 
after the name of Christ, Chrysostom thinks they were the 
enemies of all party spirit, the loyal followers of Christ and, 
as such, commended by the Apostle! To the same effect 
Augustine (Serm. ad Pop. 76), Ambrosiaster, and even Meyer, 
though he admits that, in proudly standing aloof from party, 
they had themselves become a party. But it is evident 
from 2 Cor. x. 7 that some in Corinth claimed to hold a 
peculiar relation to Christ, and the Apostle maintains that he 
belongs to Christ as they also do. Neander suggests that 
they may have had in their possession a collection of Christ’s 
sayings. But all the others would have readily acknowledged 
the authority of those sayings. Perhaps their factious spirit 
showed itself, not in their accepting Christ, but in the 
rejection of Christ’s Apostles, That such a thing was possible, 
we know from the fact that the Nazarene Christians would 
not read St. Paul’s Epistles in their Church assemblies. Men 
that despise the partial manifestation of Christ which is given 
through a Paul or an Apollos may be quite as sectarian in 
spirit as those who fight for a part as if it were the whole.’ 
What their peculiar doctrines were, it is useless to conjecture. 
They may have been mystics; they may have been rationalists. 
Every man will judge for himself what it is likely those who 
reject Apostolic teaching will have left. 

But are not these differences, it may be asked, fatal to a 
common Christianity ? Decidedly not. The only article of a 
standing or a falling Church, and the only confessional badge 
of a Christian, when St. Paul wrote this Epistle, was the 
answer to the question, “ Believest thou that Jesus is the 
Christ, the Son of God?” Baur’s error was not so much that 
he exaggerated the differences of intellectual beliefs in the 


1 Chrysostom’s view is sometimes incorrectly stated, by Beza for instance, as 
if he considered the words “1 of Christ,’’ to be St. Paul’s declaration concerning 
himself. 

2 The late Dr. Duncan of Edinburgh said that certain good people, “ to protest 
against sects, madeanother.” (Colloquia Peripatetica.) ὁ a 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—I. 10. 15 


Apostolic age, as that he estimated the meaning and effects of 
such differences by the narrow standard of a subsequent time. 


The Apostle’s discussion of questions bearing on the factions 
extends from i. 10 to iv. 21. After a brief statement of the 
case, he argues against party spirit on these four general 
grounds: the relation of Christianity to Christ (i. 19--|Ι. 5), 
to the Holy Spirit (ii. 6-iii. 4), to God (iii. 5-20), and to the 
believer (ui. 21-23). Remarks of a more personal nature 
conclude this Division of the Epistle (iv. 1-21). 


A. Sratement or THE Case. 
(i. 10-12). 


The factions have arisen from undue subservience to human 
teachers. 

V. 10. παρακαλῶ, “I exhort,” the only meaning in classic 
Greek and the usual meaning in the New Testament, where, 
however, it signifies also, (1) “ to beseech,” as in Plutarch and 
Epictetus ; in this sense the older writers use it only of prayer ; 
(2) “to comfort,’ which meaning is very rare before the LXX. 

δέ, transitional. The usage is frequent after a preface, as 
here. Cf. Thuc., III. 61, § 2, Poppo’s note. 

ἀδελφοί. “ Latet in hoc etiam verbo argumentum” (Beza). 
Cf. Acts-vii. 26. 
6d. The class. word would be πρός. But διά: means “ by 
making mention of.” In the previous verses the Apostle has 
nine times named Jesus Christ. Similarly in Rom. xii. 1 he 
exhorts his readers διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν, which he has enumerated 
in xi. 22-36 (cf. Rom. xv. 80; 2 Cor. x. 1). He is preparing 
for what is to follow by reverting to the fundamental Christian 
position of union with Christ. If the Corinthians had under- 
stood the doctrine of the mystical union, they would not have 
set a Paul or an Apollos on a level with the Lord Jesus. 

ἵνα. For this construction with παρακαλῶ, cf. Mark v. 10; 
1 Cor. xvi. 12; and ὅπως in Matt. viii. 84. It marks the 
transition in the usage of ἵνα from the notion of purpose to 
that of the object of the verb, the clause introduced with ἵνα 
expressing the contents of the exhortation. hat ἵνα is not 


16 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


used with παρακαλῷ in class. Greek is enough to disprove 
Fritzsche and Meyer’s doctrine that ἵνα in the New Testament 
invariably expresses purpose. (Cf. Winer, Gr. § xliv., and 
Moulton’s note; Buttmann, N.S. p. 204; Jelf, Gr. § 803. 3.) 
TO αὐτὸ 4 « « yvoun. The exhortation has reference 
to the two gifts of the Spirit in which these Greek Christians 
had been eminent, discernment and utterance. The Apostle 
charges them with abusing these spiritual gifts to the destruc- 
tion of Christian peace. Their strife of words was an abuse 
of the gift of utterance. But it sprang from a more inward 
dissension ; for the gift of discernment was degenerating into 
a barren intellectualism, void of heart. Let them above all, 
then, seek the deeper union of moral disposition (vods). This 
will give a new character to their discernment of truth 
(γνῶσις), and from this, again, will result unity in judgment 
(γνώμη). Νοῦς is related to γνῶσις as γνώμη is to λόγος. 
σχίσματα, ““ dissensions,” as in John vii. 43, and nearly 
synonymous with δυχοστασίαι, except that the latter term 
implies that the dissension has given rise to actual division 
and created “factions.”  Ustius’ paraphrase of σχίσματα, 
“ sectee intra ecclesiam,” is too comprehensive. The Apostle 
purposely refrains from using the strongest term that might 
have been employed. Much less does σχίσμα in the New 
Testament denote “schism” in the ecclesiastical sense, or 
“congregationis separatio” (Aug., Adv. Crescon. II. 7), the 
μερισμός of Tgnat. (Philad. 2). The Corinthians met in one 
place (cf. xi. 18; xiv. 23). Neither does σχίσμα denote 
difference of doctrine. (Cf. Theod. on xi. 18, σχίσματα οὐ 
'δογμάτικα λέγει, ἀλλὰ τὰ τῆς φιλαρχίας.) 
ἦτε δέ. The δέ adds somewhat to the idea: “ but rather,” 
(Cf. Thue. iv. 86, οὐκ ἐπὶ κακῷ, ἐπ᾽ ἐλευθέρωσει δὲ τῶν ᾿Ελλή- 
νων.) This furnishes a clue to the meaning of what follows. 
κατηρτισμένοι. Καταρτίζειν (from ἄρτιος, “ well-fitted ;” 
the κατά strengthening the notion, as in κατακόπτω) means 
either (1) “to restore,” whether materially, “ to repair,” e.g. 
δίκτυα, Matt. iv. 21, or ethically, ‘to restore into the right 
way,” as in Gal. vi. 1: ; or (2) ““ἴο complete,” “make serkect, τς 
as in Luke vi. 40. The former meaning is here adopted by 
Neander, De Wette, etc. : “that ye be reconciled to one 
another,” “that the status quo ante be restored.” ‘The Vulg., 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—1I. 10. ΤΥ 


on the other hand, has perfecti. It is better to combine both 
meanings. The word carries on the metaphor that lies in 
σχίσματα, and means the repairing of arent. But their dis- 
sensions were beginning to tell injuriously on their spiritual 
condition. There were not only σχίσματα in the Church, 
but personal ὑστερήματα. “Let them, therefore, be fully 
equipped in grace, that so they may be reconciled to one 
another.” Theophyl. excellently : τέλειοι ἐν πᾶσι πράγμασιν 
ὁμονοοῦντες. Olshausen truly observes “that the Apostle is 
not speaking about absolute perfection, but perfection in their 
unity, which can co-exist with a low degree of development, 
inasmuch as it only requires humble hearts.”’ It is, in fact, the 
Old Test. idea of perfection, that is, sincerity. The change 
in point of view after the Apostle’s time is well illustrated 
by Ignatius’ explanation—if it be not an interpolation, ἐν 
pid ὑποταγῇ κατηρτισμένοι, ὑποτασσόμενοι τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ Kal 
τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ. 

vot. The class. forms νοῦ, νῷ, do not occur in the New 
Test. So poi is late for po. 

vot... γνώμῃ. . The distinction drawn by some of the 
best expositors between νοῦς and γνώμη is that between the 
theoretical and practical reason. So Chrys., Calvin, Estius, 
etc. The author of the Sixth Book of the Nicomachzan 
Ethics says, ὁ νοῦς τῶν ἐσχάτων ἐπ᾽ ἀμφότερα, that is, it in- 
cludes the practical as well as the theoretical reason. It » 
apprehends the object to be desired, the thing to be done. 
So in Rom. vii. 23 νοῦς means, not only the faculty that dis-. 
tinguishes between true and false, but also the moral judgment, 
which distinguishes what is good and right from what is 
evil and wrong (cf. Eph. iv. 17; 1 Tim. vi. 5; 2 Tim. 111. δ). 
Again, γνώμη also has a theoretical no less than a practicah 
side. Γνώμῃ λαβεῖν τοὺς νόμους means to understand the: 
laws theoretically; but in vii. 25, 40, γνώμη denotes a prac- 
tical decision. In the Lexicons almost precisely the same 
significations are given under νοῦς and γνώμη. But the words 
differ in point of view. Νοῦς regards the thing from the side 
of the subject; γνώμη from the side of the object. Though 
both are derived from the same root γνω (cf. Curtius, Grwndz. 
p- 178), yet νοεῖν means, on the whole, “to think” and γνῶναι 
“tolearn.” Hence νοῦς is way of thinking, γνώμη an opinion, 

€ 


18 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the result of such operation of mind (cf. Lidd. and Scott). 
The Apostle wishes the Corinthians to preserve the high 
spiritual level of thought and feeling, which heathenism had 
lost and Christianity has restored, to judge questions from ἡ 
the same Christian standpoint, and on the basis of the same 
principles. This unity in moral attitude would strengthen and 
purify their discernment (γνῶσις). But he would have them 
endeavour to arrive also at a common belief, which they could 
embody in one form of words, as their manifesto before the 
world. Such ἃ γνώμη would be the best form of utterance. 

V. 11. ἐδηλώθη, “it was made clear;” much stronger 
than “it was told me” (cf. iii. 18). The word implies that 
the Apostle was reluctant to believe the reports which had 
come to his ears. When Chloe’s people, among whom was 
Stephanas, one of the Apostle’s best converts in Achaia (cf. 
xvi. 15), confirmed their truth, the thing was undeniable. 

τῶν Xdons. Cf. Rom. xvi. 10, τῶν ApsotoBovrov. Hence 
we may suppose they were Chloe’s slaves, who had come to 
Ephesus on her affairs. They may have been Stephanas, 
Fortunatus and Achaicus (cf. xvi. 17). From vii. 1 we know 
that the Corinthian Church as such sent to ask the Apostle 
for directions in certain cases of conscience. We gather from 
the present verse that no mention was made in that letter 
of the more grave charges, which had reached his ears from 
‘another source (ef. v. 1). 

ἔριδες. Their dissensions had found a tongue. Cf. Soph., 
id, Col, 1234, στάσεις, ἔρις, μάχαι. "Epis is ἀντιλογία 
(Plat., Rep. V. p. 454). From the extreme of gainsaying the 
Apostle wishes to draw them to the opposite extreme of saying 
the same thing. Their spiritual union ought to have issued in 
‘a common utterance. The form ἔριδες is class. and occurs only 
here in the New Test. The late form épevs occurs in Tit. 
ili. 9, unless we read ἔριν. 

V. 12. λέγω δὲ τοῦτο, “ what I mean is this” (cf. xiv. 
15). This signification of λέγω is frequent in class. Greek 
(cf. Plat., Rep. I. p. 338, σαφέστερον εἰπὲ τί Χλέγεις). ‘The τοῦτο 
in such phrases usually refers to what is to follow, unless it is 
‘followed by a final clause, as in vii. 35 (cf. Gal. iii. 17). 

ἕκαστος, emphatic. Party-spirit had infected the whole 
‘Church, The form of expression is incorrect for ὅτε πώντες 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—I. 10-12. 19 


λέγετε, ὃ μὲν, ἐγὼ εἰμὶ Παύλου, ὁ δὲ, ἐγὼ Ἀπολλώ, ὁ δὲ, ἐγὼ 
Κηφᾶ, ὁ δὲ, ἐγὼ Χριστοῦ. But the words as they stand really 
express the Apostle’s meaning more accurately. By inserting 
the δέ in what each party said, he sets forth more vividly the 
opposition between one and another (cf. Acts 11. 6). 

εἰμὶ Παύλου, “1 am Paul’s.” The rendering in Cranmer’s 
Bible is good: “1 hold of Paul.” It is unnecessary to supply 
μέρους, and incorrect to supply, as Kypke, werd. Cf. Dem., 
Phil. 111. p. 125, ἦσαν τινὲς μὲν Φιλίππου καὶ wav? ὑπηρε- 
τοῦντες ἐκείνῳ, τινὲς δὲ τοῦ βελτέστου, where the participial 
clause expresses what more is implied in the genit. than in 
μετά. 

Απολλώς (short for AvoAXwvios) is an instance of a Jew 
taking a Greek name, a fashion then prevalent in Asia and 
Egypt among those that wished to shine as learned men. (Cf. 
Ewald, History of Israel, Eng. Tr., V. p. 269. On Apollos, cf. 
Acts xviii. 24—xix. 1.) He came to. Corinth after the Apostle 
(cf. iii. 6). Both were fast friends (cf. xvi. 12). Apollos was in 
Ephesus when St. Paul wrote this Epistle. But he does not 
join the Apostle, as Sosthenes does, in saluting the Church. 
This may have been intentional and prompted by the same 
displeasure at their having used his name to rend the Church 
and disparage Paul, which made him reluctant to visit Corinth 
notwithstanding the Apostle’s generous confidence as to the 
result. After this Apollos is mentioned only in Tit. in. 18 
(cf. Introd.). 

Κηφᾶς, Aramaic for Πέτρος (cf. John 1. 42). Wordsworth 
(on Gal. ii. 11) suggests ‘‘ that the Judaizers fondly cleaved 
to his Jewish name even [ἢ especially] in a city of Greece.” 
But this is doubtful. (Cf. note on xv. 5.) 

Χριστοῦ. Gritz proposes to read Χρήστου, Chrestus, as the 
name of a teacher like Apollos. The passage cited in support 
of the conjecture are the well-known words in Suetonius 
(Claud. 25): ‘* Judzeos, impulsore Chresto, . . tumultuantes 
Roma expulit.”” But it is uncertain that Chrestus is not 
a mis-spelling for ‘Christus ”’ in a document of the time of 
Claudius, which we may suppose Suetonius to be quoting. 
(Cf. Cruttwell, History of Roman Literature, p. 387.) 


20 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


B. First Argument Acatnst THE Factions. 
(i. 13-ii. δ). 


The Gospel is primarily and essentially the proclamation of 
salvation through Christ. The whole argument is included, 
in the form of questions, in ver. 13. Christ is the crucified 
Saviour; it is into the name of Christ we are baptized, and 
baptism brings us through faith into union with Christ. From 
ver. 14 to ver. 16 is a personal digression. From ver. 17 to 
11. 6 the Apostle proves that the Gospel is primarily the pro- 
clamation of salvation through Christ; first, from the nature 
of the message (i. 17-25); second, from the character of the 
Church (1. 26-31); third, from the power of the ministry 
(ii. 1-5). 

Ν. 18. μεμέρισται ὁ Χριστός; Lachm., Stanley, Meyer, 
Westc. and Hort, consider the clause to be a statement: 
“Christ has been divided by your dissensions.”” Theod. 
mentions this view. But we should then be sacrificing the 
contrasts which the Apostle’s questions bring into prominence. 
“Has Christ, who is the Head of the whole Church, been 
divided, so as to become leader only of a faction? Or was 
Paul, who is but part of the Church, crucified for you so as to 
become its Head?’”? ‘They must accept the one or the other 
alternative. Men who profess to be exclusively Paulinists do 
so either because they choose whatever of Christ is manifested 
in Paul, and reject what Christ reveals of Himself in Peter, 
thus dividing Christ, or becanse they take Paul, not for a par- 
tial and imperfect manifestation of Christ, but for the Christ 
Himself, thus ascribing to Paul the redemptive work of the 
cross. If the clause were a statement, the Apostle would have 
said, ‘‘ Christs have been multiplied.” 

ὁ Χριστός. . The art. often, not always, turns the proper 
name into an appellative (cf. Bleek on Heb. v. 5; but ποὺ 80 in 
Heb. vi. 1). In the same way Aristotle indicates the Socrates 
of Plato’s Dialogues as 6 Σ΄, but does not use the art. in 
speaking of the real Socrates (cf. Hih. Nic. VI. xiii. 5). The 
Apostle is here speaking—to use De Wette’s epithet—of 
“the historico-ideal” Christ. ‘‘ Has He who is the Christ of 
God been divided ?” 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—I. 13, 14. 21 


ἐσταυρώθη. His crucifixion it was that constituted Christ 
Head of the Church. ‘The unity of the Church rests on 
redemption. Consequently believers are baptized into the 
name of Christ, that is, into union with Christ. What they 
are through the cross of Christ potentially, that they are 
actually through baptism. The two are here named togethe, 
and these two cnly, because baptism is to the believer what 
the cross was to Christ. The one made Christ the Head of, 
the Church; the other makes the believer a member of Christ’s 
mystical body. To baptize, therefore, into the name of Paul 
would be a confession in act that Paul was the source of our 
spiritual life through a redemptive death. Expositors detect 
in the reference to baptism a censure of one or another of 
the parties in the Corinthian Church. - Heinrici, for instance, 
thinks the Apostle refers to the Apollos-party. But all such 
conjectures miss the real purpose of the words, which is to 
show that all party-spirit is disloyalty to Christ as He is re- 
presented in the two great corresponding facts, Christ’s death 
and the believer’s baptism. | 

ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, “for you”; literally, “for your good,” the 
original meaning of ὑπέρ being that of bending over a person 
to protect him. But as we know from other passages that 
St. Paul believed the death of Christ to be an expiation for 
sin, ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν must have meant more to the Apostle’s mind 
than merely ‘for your benefit,” though the words do not 
express more. 

εἰς TO ὄνομα, as an acknowledgment of Christ’s authority 
as Head of the Church. 

ἐβαπτίσθητε, a pass. aor. in a reflexive sense: “ye had 
yourselves baptized ” (cf. note on vi. 11). 

V. 14. ὅτι ἐβάπτισας The opt. in oblique narration 
very rarely occurs in the N. Test., except in St. Luke’s Gospel 
and the Book of Acts (cf. Buttmann, N.S. p. 186). 

Kpicrov. Crispus was the ruler of the synagogue, who 
believed in the Lord with all his house, when he heard St. 
Paul preach during his first visit to Corinth (cf. Acts xvii. δ). 
He may have been a Jew who adopted a Roman name (cf. 
Lucius, Rom. xvi. 21). Or he may have been a descendant 
of the Roman settlers of Julius Cesar. If so, he was ἃ prose- 
lyte of righteousness, of whom there were many among 


22, THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the Romans (cf. Dio Cass. xxxvii. 17, ἐστε καὶ παρὰ τοῖς 
Ρωμαίοις τὸ γένος τοῦτο). 

Τάϊον, the Greek form of Caius, so that he was probably one 
of the Roman settlers, like Tertius, with whom he is named in 
Rom. xvi. 22, He was the Apostle’s host during his second 
visit to Corinth, and the Church met in his house (ef. Rom. 
xvi. 23). Aquila, with whom St. Paul lodged during his 
first visit, had now left Corinth and, after a brief sojourn m 
Ephesus, returned to Rome. Another Gaius, of Derbe, was 
now with the Apostle in Ephesus (cf. Acts xix. 29; xx. 4). 

V. 15. ἵνα depends on εὐχαριστῶοξ “My purpose in 
declaring my thankfulness to God for providentially giving 
me hardly any occasion to baptize with my own hands is to 
deprive you of every pretext for alleging that ye were baptized 
in my name.” 

ἐβαπτίσθητε is the reading of NABC. D has ἐβάπτισα, 
a reading that appears to have originated in misconception 
of the Apostle’s meaning. But his fear was not that the 
Corinthians would ascribe to him a wrong motive, but that 
they would misapprehend the real meaning of baptism. The 
difficulty is to understand how any member of the Church 
could have supposed that he had been baptized into the name 
of Paul. And, if such a supposition were possible, how did 
the Apostle’s omission to baptize with his own hands remove 
all pretext for it? Christ did not Himself baptize; yet 
believers are baptized into His name. Riickert thinks the 
Apostle’s argument flimsy. The solution must be songht in 
the import of baptism. If baptism means no more than the 
registration of a person in an external society, the Apostle 
could not attach importance to the boast of some that they had 
been baptized into his name. He would have treated it with 
silent contempt. But if baptism is the divinely instituted 
means whereby a believer is brought into the mystical body of 
Christ, then to boast of having been baptized into Panl’s name 
would be tantamount to a confession of Paul as Head of the 
mystical body which is the Church. How would the Apostle 
have acted, if he had wished to be the founder of a new form of 
Christianity ὃ Christ’s headship rested on an expiatory death. 
Paul had nothing of this kind on which he might erect his 
Church, He would have been driven to the universal expe- 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—1I. 14-17. 25 


dient of all founders of societies. He would have established an 
external rite of initiation, such as baptism. But he did not do 
so. He rarely baptized at all. Baptizing was not part of his 
special commission, which actually differs from the commission 
given to the other Apostles in not containing any mention of 
baptizing (compare Acts ix. 15 with Matt. xxviii. 19). The 
Apostle now thanks God for the omission. He seems to him- 
self to understand at last what the omission meant. He was 
commissioned by Christ Himself to inaugurate a second epoch 
in the history of Christianity. In this respect no other Apostle 
came so near the position occupied by the Divine Founder of 
the Church. Many would be tempted to regard him as the 
real founder, and glory in having been baptized into his name. 
For this reason, he now sees, baptizing was omitted from his 
apostolical commission. He was at liberty to administer the 
rite, as Ananias had done and any brother might do. But 
the circumstances of his life were so arranged that even this 
was for the most part denied him. No outward initiation of 
converts entered into the conception of his ministry. Nothing 
shows more clearly the peculiar greatness of St. Paul’s work, 
or brings out more conspicuously the complete sincerity of his 
devotedness to Jesus Christ. 

V. 16. The δέ introduces a limitation or correction of the 
previous statement (cf. note on i. 6; Hartung, Partikell. 
1. 168; Jelf, Gr. § 767, 3. e). 

Στεφανᾶ. Stephanas is short for Stephanophorus, as 
Epaphras for Epaphroditus. 

οἶκον, “‘ household,’ synonymous with οἰκία, xvi. 15. In 
Acts vii. 10 οἶκος includes even the slaves of the palace. 

V.17. The former part of the verse must be connected 
with the verses that immediately precede. His reason for not 
baptizing was that his special work was to evangelize. Ov 
does not here mean “not only ;” it means “ not” (cf. Winer, 
Gr. § LV. 8 ; Buttmann, N.N., p. 306). 

ἀπέστειλε, “sent as an agent.”  Hrasmus well renders 
ἀποστέλλω by lego cum mandatis. 

εὐωγγελίζεσθαι is infin. of purpose, the usual construction 
after verbs of directing. 


The Apostle now proceeds to his arguments. 


24 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


(1) That the Gospel is primarily the proclamation of a salva- 
tion through Christ is proved from the nature of the message. 


(i. 17-25). 


Ν. 17. The latter part of the verse is grammatically con- 
nected with the former half, but logically introduces a new 
thought, that the Gospel is, not primarily a philosophy, but a 
message. - ‘I'he notion of εὐωαγγελίζεσθαι is carried on in the 
word λόγος. It expresses the distinctive character of the 
Gospel, as indeed Christ arrogated to Himself the fulfilment 
of Isaiah’s words, ἔχρισε με εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς (Luke 
iv. 18). 

οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου. The negative particle is οὐ, not μή, 
though the infin. εὐαγγελίζεσθαι is to be supplied, because 
the words ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου are virtually opposed to another 
clause not expressed, such as ἀλλ᾽ ἐν μωρίᾳ τοῦ κηρύγματος. 
Cf. Thuc. I. 85, where od λόγῳ διαιρετὰς is opposed, in a 
similar way, to a clause to be mentally supplied, such as ἀλλ᾽ 
ἔργῳ πρὸς αὐτὰς παρασκευαστέον. “ Wisdom of word” can- 
not mean merely rhetoric (‘Theod., Theophyl.), as if it were 
synonymous with σοφία τοῦ λέγειν, for it is opposed to μωρία 
(ver. 18) and μωρία τοῦ κηρύγμωτος (ver. 21). Neither can it 
denote a heathen system of philoscphy ; for it is joined with 
εὐαγγελίζεσθαι. It must, therefore, mean a Christian philo- 
sophy, a system, that is, of theological speculation raised on 
the basis of a revelation, as opposed to the simple declaration 
of a fact. 

κενωθῇ, “emptied” (cf. xv. 14; Rom.iv.14). The force οὔ" 
xevos in this counection may be conveyed by the words 
“empty of content, unreal, not having objective existence, 
consisting only of opinions, sentiments, speculation.”~ ‘The 
cross of Christ is a real cause in the moral order of things. To 
substitute a system of notions, however true and ennobling, 
for the fact of Christ’s death, is like confounding the theory of 
gravitation with gravitation itself. 

V. 18. That to regard the Guspel as a mere philosophy 
deprives it of its cosmical power is proved from the condition 
of those that perish and of those that are being saved. For the 
moral state of those that perish effectually prevents them from 
seeing the greatness and understanding the truth of this 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—1I. 17-19. 95 


Divine philosophy. It must, therefore, manifest its power to 
save before it can be recognized asthe wisdom of God. Again, 
those that are saved know in their own experience that the 
Gospel wields a Divine power and that salvation is, not a theory 
only, but an operation of God. 

ὁ λόγος τοῦ σταυροῦ, Synonymous with εὐαγγέλιον (cf. Eph. 
i. 19). Σ᾽ ταυροῦ is objective genit. (οἴ, 2 Cor. v.19; 1 Johni. 1). 

ἀπολλυμένοις and σωζομένοις are not precisely ethical 
datives (“in the opinion of’), but datives of respect (‘in its 
bearing on them ἢ). They easily pass into the ethical mean- 
ing. The Gospel becomes folly in the eyes of those whom it 
does not save. This explains the fact that some men are even 
now in a condition that prevents them from seeing the 
wisdom of the Gospel, while others are now in a condition to 
acknowledge it. As Chrysostom observes, those that perish 
are like sick folk to whom healthy food is distasteful, or 
madmen who abuse their best friends. Meyer thinks the 
present is here used for the future to express certainty. 
Winer doubts that it is ever so used; but cf. Bernhardy, 
W. δ. p. 371. The objection to Meyer’s view is that the 
certainty of perdition or salvation is not relevant to the 
Apostle’s argument. The perdition and the salvation here 
meant are undoubtedly eternal death and eternal life. (Cf. 
Phil. ii. 19, ὧν τὸ τέλος ἀπώλεια.) 

V. 19. The substitution of a Divine power for human 
speculation is in accordance with the purpose of God declared 
through the prophet, that God would at some future time 
destroy the wisdom of the wise. The time is come. 

ἀπολῶ... . aGetnow. The words are cited from the 
LXX., Isa. xxix. 14, except that the Apostle has ἀθετήσω for 
κρύψω. Kautzsch suggests that he wrote ἀθετήσω from a 
reminiscence of Ps, xxxii. (xxxui.) 10, The passage in Isaiah 
has reference to the spiritual blindness and obduracy of Israel, 
which the prophet traces back to the sovereignty of the 
Most High. The circumstances differ. But the application 
of the words to the impotency of human wisdom is justifiable. 
The principle of God’s action is the same in both cases, that 
spiritual blindness should be punished with spiritual blindness, 
On the distinction between σοφία and σύνεσις cf. Harless on 
Eph. i. 8; Ellicott on Col. i.9. But it must: not be here 


26 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


pressed as the citation is an instance of the parallelism of 
Hebrew poetry. 

V. 20. The prophecy is fulfilled. The world’s philosophy 
is dying. God has through the Gospel turned it into folly. 
Most expositors, from Clem. Alex. (Strom. I. p. 370 Potter) 
and Chrys. to De Wette and Meyer, see in the Apostle’s three 
questions an allusion to Jewish and Greek philosophy. De 
Wette and others, after Vitringa on Isa. xxxiii. 18, think the 
first question includes the other two, of which the former 
refers to Jewish, the latter to Greek speculations; and 
Riickert and Hofmann do not succeed in their attempts to 
throw discredit on the distinction. The name γραμματεύς 
was unknown in class. Greek, except as the designation 
of the clerk of the Ecclesia. But in the New Test. the 

“ scribes” are the Sopherim, the interpreters of the Law and 
teachers of Rabbinical wisdom; mostly Pharisees and identical 
probably with the ee eae (cf. Luke xxii. 2). But 
ovténtn7s would correctly describe a Greek philosopher. 
Indeed the word is resumed in ver. 22, Ἕλληνες σοφίαν 
ζητοῦσιν. It is not unlikely that the Apostle borrowed the 
name from the Jewish Cabbalists (cf. Baruch iii. 23; and 
Vitringa, De Synaq. p. 670). But the expression is too wide 
to justify Brucker’s supposition that the Apostle is speaking 
only of the Cabbala or of the germs of Gnosticism (Hist. 
Crit. Philos. II. p. 708). The word expresses precisely the 
difference between σοφός and φιλοσοφός, the latter the 
designation said to have been assumed by Pythagoras from 
a sense of unworthiness (Cic., Tusc. V. 3). But all through 
Greek literature σοφία has a tinge of arrogance from which 
φιλοσοφία is free (cf. Plat., Phedr. Ὁ. 278 ἢ; Sympos. p. 
203 C.; Plut., De Plac. Philos. I.). There is perhaps a touch 
of irony in the Apostle’s question, ‘“ Where is there a wise 
man?”? Compare Rom. i. 22, φάσκοντες εἶναι σοφοί, with the 
common phrase of φάσκοντες εἶναι φιλοσοφοί. When the 
Apostle wrote, Greek speculation was decaying.' To find the 


1 I append a few references to modern books: Tenneman, Manual, Eng. Trans. 
p. 149; Archer Butler, Lectures, Vol. II. p. 365; Schwegler, History of Philo- 
sophy, Stirling’s Trans., p. 143; Ueberweg, History of Philusophy, Eng. Trans., 
Vol. I. § 62; Caird, Philosophy of Kant, p. 21; Zeller, Phil. der Griechen, 
Th. III. Abth. 2. 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—1I. 19, 20. 27 


teachers of the age, we must turn to the school of Alexandria. 
But Philo’s eclecticism is the best proof possible of the ex- 
haustion of Jewish and of Hellenic thought, inasmuch as it 
gives expression to the universal yearning for a revelation of 
God through the Logos. 

The Apostle’s words are so like Isa, xxxiii. 18 that we 
must. with Vitringa, suppose them to be borrowed from that 
passage. If the prophet is asking in triumph, when Ashur 
has been dashed to pieces, where the men now are that have 
been appointed by Sennacherib to value the tribute to be 
raised, to weigh the gold and silver, and to make a recog- 
nizance of the city to be besieged (so Delitzsch and Cheyne 
explain the words), then we can have no difficulty in acknow- 
ledging that the prophet’s language suggested to the Apostle 
the structure of his threefold question, and gave it a half- 
concealed tone of triumph. 

ποῦ; Of. xii. 17; Luke viii.25; Baruchiii. 16; and Soph., 
Gd. Tyr. 390, ποῦ σὺ μάντις εἶ σαφής ; 

τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, rightly joined to σοφός and γραμματεύς 
as wellas to συζητητής. The Jews were ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου no less 
than the heathen (cf. John viii. 23). It is true the Mosaic 
dispensation is contrasted with the κόσμος (cf. Eph. ii. 12). 
But that only makes Christ’s denunciation of the Jews the 
more crushing. 

αἰῶνος (perhaps from da, “to breathe,’ though Curtius, 
Grundz. p. 388, reverts:'to Aristotle’s derivation, ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀεὶ 
εἶναι, and compares ἀΐδιος, ἐπτηετανός, evum, tas). The words 
ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος has sometimes in the New Test. a merely chro- 
nological meaning, denoting, in accordance with the notions 
of the later Judaism, the time up to the (second) coming of 
Christ, when ὁ αἰῶν μέλλων begins (cf. espec. Tit. ii. 12). To 
this is sometimes added a moral idea; “this world” being 
that system of things which is alienated from God, “the 
world to come” being synonymous with “the kingdom of 
heaven,” that order of things which centres in the revelation 
of God in Christ (cf. ii. 6; Rom. xii. 2). But the notion of 
transitoriness is never quite absent from the words; αἰὼν 
being used of the kingdom of Christ by way of contrast. 
This distinguishes ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος from κόσμος. In the New 
Test. the conception of a unity of principle in evil is brought 


28 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TOE CORINTHIANS. 


for the first time into prominence. The unifying power of the 
personality of Christ confers oneness on all spiritual powers 
(cf. Martensen, Dogm. § 96 ; Zezschwitz, Profungrdc. p. 23). 

ἐμώρανεν. Not only, to borrow Plato’s words (Apol. 9), is 
human wisdom in itself of little worth, but it was also turned 
into folly by an act of God (cf. Rom. i. 22). When God 
revealed a way of salvation through what human wisdom 
despised, human wisdom became foolishness. Celsus seems 
to allude to this verse when he taunts the Christians with 
regarding wisdom as an evil, folly as a good (cf. Orig., 6. 
Cels. I. 9 and 13). 

V. 21. This verse states, not the reason why (Chrys., De 
Wette, etc.), but the way in which God turned the wisdom of 
the world into folly. He has accomplished through what the 
world regarded as folly what the world failed to do through its 
wisdom. For the end for which all things were made is to 
know God. Philosophy has not brought Him to light. But 
God has now made Himself known through a manifestation of 
mercy and power, that is in men’s salvation, and this salvation 
has been brought to pass through the cross of Christ, which 
is the κήρυγμα of the Gospel. Origen (c. Cels. I. 13) ex- 
plains the connection in a similar way. 

ἐν τῇ σοφίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Three different explanations have 
been given of these words: 

(1) Macknight, Riickert, Alford render: “as part of the 
wise arrangement of God.” But ἐν cannot mean “as part of,” 
which is a different notion from “in the form of” (ii. 7). 
Besides, this interpretation introduces an irrelevant notion. 

(2) Heydenreich and Maier refer the wisdom of God to the 
revelation of God given in the Gospel. “God resolved to 
reveal Himself in Christ as a saviour because the world had 
failed to know God in Christ as God’s wisdom.” But the 
salvation which God has provided for men in Christ is itself 
the manifestation of God’s wisdom. : 

(3) The great majority of expositors from Chrys. down 
think the Apostle speaks of the manifestations of God’s wis- 
dom in nature and providence, to which Clem. Al. (Strom. p. 
370 Potter), Meyer and De Wette add the revelation of God 
given in the Old Test. The objection is the seeming con- 
tradiction between the verse and Rom. 1. 21, where it is said 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—1I. 20, 21. 29 


that the Gentiles did know God (cf. Gal. iv. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 5). 
But the contradiction is in the actual history of human thought. 
The mind of Socrates, for instance, oscillated between an ac- 
knowledgment of the popular deities of Greece and a belief in 
one God, 6 τὸν ὅλον κόσμον συντάττων. Plato was a mono- 
theist ; yet he considered the myths concerning Zeus, Heré, 
and other gods a necessary part of education; and by identi- 
fying God with the idea of the good he imperilled the notion 
of the Divine personality.1. The Stoics were doubtingly pan- 
theists. The prevailing tone of Greek thought is an ex- 
pression of the utter helplessness of reason to find God—the 
feeling pensively couched in the doubting question of Aischy- 
lus (Agam. 155), Ζεὺς, ὅστις ποτ᾽ ἐστίν, or ironically in the 
words of Euripides (Bacch. 200), οὐδὲν σοφιζόμεθα τοῖσι δαΐ: 
poow. We must add, finally, that there is a great difference 
between knowing God externally and knowing Him with an 
inward assent of the soul to God’s revelation of Himself. 

διὰ τῆς σοφίας, “through its (the world’s) wisdom”; not, 
as Bengel, “through the wisdom of preaching.” 

εὐδόκησεν, “resolved,” denoting not so much the mercy as 
the free and sovereign will of God (voluntas liberrima). Cf. 
Luke x. 21; Gal.i. 15. The notion is introduced to silence 
the despisers of the Gospel. Even if the Gospel were in itself 
ill adapted to reveal God to men, still, as its efficiency is evi- 
dent in fact, it must be ascribed, if not to God’s wisdom, at 
least to His will and power; and this is enough. Evdoxéw does 
not occur before Polybius. Contrary to most verbs com- 
pounded with ed, it is formed from-a verb, not a substantive 
(cf. Lobeck, Phryn. p. 266). 

διὰ τῆς μωρίας τοῦ κηρύγματος, “ through the folly of what 
is preached.” In 2 Tim. iv. 17 κήρυγμα seems to be used 
in the sense of κήρυξις, which does not occur in the New Test. 
In every other passage it means the message. The Greeks 
did not despise the act of proclaiming truth; they regarded 
as folly the doctrine preached, which is salvation through the 
cross. 

σῶσαι, that is, from ἀπωλεία, from sin (Matt. i. 21) and 

1“Die bedeutendsten unter den nachsokratischen Philosophen folgten 


vielmehr der Richtung, welche schon Sokrates gewihlt hatte, um den Poly- 
theismus mit dem Monotheismus zu verséhnen.’’—Zeller, Vortrdge, 1. 


30 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


death, the wages of sin, through faith in Christ (Eph. ii. 8). 
Though the New Test. writers derived the conception of 
“salvation ” from such passages as Joel ii, 32, which promise 
deliverance at the coming of Messiah, yet Christ had already 
given it an ethical application; and the ethical import of salva- 
tion 1s at the core of Pauline teaching. Without this his 
mission to any other men than the Jews would have been qnite 
beside the mark. A glimmering of this peculiarly Christian 
conception of the word appears in the closing sentence of 
Plato’s Republic: καὶ ἡμᾶς ἂν σώσειεν, ἂν πειθώμεθα αὐτῷ, καὶ 
τὸν τῆς Λήθης ποταμὸν εὖ διαβησόμεθα καὶ τὴν ψυχήν οὐ 
μιανθησόμεθα. 

The words “in the wisdom of God” are in antithesis to 
“the folly of what is preached,” and the words “ through its 
wisdom ” to the words “them that believe.” The cross is 
the manifestation of God in the Gospel, corresponding to the 
works of nature and providence; while faith is the eye of the 
soul that corresponds to human wisdom. 

Vv. 22-24, Explanatory of ver. 21. The “world” con- 
sists of two very different classes of men, who endeavour to 
know God in two several manifestations of Him. The Jews 
find a revelation of God’s presence in a physical interruption 
of the course of nature; the Greeks seek Him in intellectual 
conceptions. Christianity accomplishes a supernatural work 
that surpasses all physical miracles, and by so doing proves 
itself the highest conception ever grasped by the mind of man. 

V. 22, Meyer makes ἐπειδὴ . . . ἕξητοῦσιν the pro- 
tasis, and ἡμεῖς δὲ . . . ἐσταυρωμένον the apodosis. For 
δέ introducing an apodosis after ἐπειδή, cf. Thuc. I. 11, ἐπειδὴ 
δὲ ἀφικόμενοι μάχῃ ἐκράτησαν. . . φαίνονται δὲ οὐδ᾽ ἐν- 
ταῦθα πάσῃ τῇ δυνάμει χρησάμενοι. But we should then 
expect a particle to connect this with the preceding verse. 
Hofmann considers the words to be explanatory of πιστεύ- 
ovtas, as if the Apostle wished to show why men are saved 
through faith. But the leading thought is the nature of 
the Gospel, not the way whereby its benefits are received. 
Olshausen translates ἐπειδή by “ for,” and thinks the Apostle 
is proving that God has made foolish the wisdom of the world. 
“ He has done so by permitting Jews and Gentiles to seek 
false objects, such as miracles and wisdom instead of salva- 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—1. 21, 22. 81 


tion.” But this lays the whole emphasis on the first two 
clauses. Besides, though ἐπεί sometimes means “for,” to 
translate ἐπειδή so is contrary to usage. The passages cited 
by Olshausen do not prove it. Hstius, Riickert, De Wette, 
etc., rightly consider these words to be explanatory of the 
statement that God has resolved to respond to men’s yearn- 
ings for a revelation of God by offering them salvation, which 
is at once the mightiest miracle in the guise of weakness and 
the highest wisdom in the guise of folly. ‘The word κηρύσ- 
σομεν looks back to κήρυγματος. The Gospel has already 
been described as an εὐαγγέλιον in reference to the benefits it 
confers. The words ἐμώρανεν ὁ Θεός and εὐδόκησεν add the 
great conception that the Gospelis the outcome of God’s 
sovereign will. It was an act of righteous judgment that 
proclaimed the foolishness of this world’s wisdom. But that 
judgment was made effectual through another Divine act, the 
fruit of God’s mercy, when He freely resolved to offer men 
salvation. The Gospel is that divinely authorised proclama- 
tion. God’s answer to men’s demand for miracles and to their 
search for wisdom is a message, an authoritative proclamation 
of Christ crucified. 

ἐπειδὴ . . . ἡμεῖς δέ. Riickert says μέν must be under- 
stood with ἐπειδή. But the latter clause is not merely anti- 
thetical to the former, but introduces an additional thought. 
“Tt pleased God to save men through the folly of the Gospel, 
inasmuch as all men, both Jews and Gentiles, are conscious 
of spiritual wants, however wayward their efforts to supply 
them; and, to meet those deep yearnings, we on the other 
hand, preach Christ crucified.” Hence καὶ. . . καί, not 
μὲν. . . δέ. On the alleged omission of μέν in apparently 
antithetical clauses, cf. Fritzsche’s exhaustive note on Rom. 
x. 19;1 Harless on Eph. v. 8; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 168. 

᾿Ιουδαῖοι and Ἕλληνες have not the article becanse many 
Jews and Greeks were now Christians. He avoids the blunt 
expression, “‘ The Jews require a sign,” etc. Yet the national 


1 He says: ‘*Quotiescunque μέν non scriptum est, ne cogitatum quidem est 
ascriptoribus. Recte autem ibi non ponitur ubi non sequitur membrum op- 
positum, aut scriptores oppositionem addere nondum constituerant, aut 
loquentes alterius membri oppositionem quécunque de causa lectoribus non 
indixerunt.” 


32 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


characteristics of both are hit off to perfection in the words 
αἰτεῖν and ζητεῖν. To the Jews God has already spoken ; and 
they, from the proud eminence of their divinely sprung re- 
ligion, “demand” of all upstart religions their proofs and 
credentials (cf. Matt. xii. 88; xvi.1; John vi. 30).1 The 
Greeks, on the other hand, are seekers; and they seek, as 
they worship, they know not what. They can only give it 
the general name of wisdom or truth (cf. Lucret. I. 640, 
“Gravis inter Graios qui vera requirunt”’). The Apostle’s 
statement of a national difference in way of thinking is per- 
haps one of the latest to be met with in ancient literature. In 
the second and third centuries a universal syncretism effaced 
the old national peculiarities of intellectual and moral ten- 
dencies under the influence of the natural pantheism of the 
East. An exception proves the rule. Ailian the sophist was 
especially honoured in Rome as a survival of the men who, 
like Cato, had stoutly maintained the national characteristics 
(cf. Philostr., De Vita Sophist. 1.31). Yet Adlian of Praeneste 
wrote in Greek and like a Greek. He professes (Var. Hist. 
xii. 25) to be as deeply interested in Greeks as in Romans. 
In religion only did nationalism continue to be considered 
indispensable. Celsus, for example, thought it absurd that 
Greeks and barbarians should have the same religion. But 
this only proves how completely a matter of external rites and 
how entirely separated from the mental and moral life of men 


it was held to be. 

σημεῖα. SoNA BCD, Vulg., all the Latin and most of 
the Greek Fathers. The word means “ miracles,”’ as in Rom. 
xv. 19; 2 Cor. xii. 12. The Apostle alludes to the belief 
of the Jews that Messiah would do greater miracles than 
Moses. Every Divine revelation must be replete with miracles 
and with wisdom. Without miracles no revelation can be 
proved to be Divine ; if it does not offer consummate wisdom, 
it is proved not to be Divine. But we must advance further. 
The wisdom and the miracle are both of the very essence of 
the revelation. The Apostle blames the Jews for demanding 
miracles on precisely the same grounds as he blames the 


1 A similar allusion to Jewish consciousness of superiority lurks in the word 
δογματίζεσθε, Col. ii. 22, ‘Why do ye submit to be dictated to by Jewish 
teachers ?”’ 


- 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—I. 22, 23. 88 


Greeks for seeking after wisdom. He is combating the theory 
that the Gospel is to be received because we have already 
received something else which is not the Gospel. To regard 
miracles as only external buttresses of our faith, not part of 
the design, as was done by Paley, is the same kind of error as 
to rest in the opus operatum of a sacrament. It is, in fact, 
to quote Archdeacon Hare, “the theological parallel to the 
materialist hypothesis, that all our knowledge is derived 
through the senses,’?! The only answer to Lessing’s question, 
ΟἼΕΙ have nothing historically to urge against the belief in 
the resurrection of Jesus Christ, must, I, therefore, believe - 
him to be the Son of God?” is the position which the 
Apostle takes, that the supernatural facts of Christianity 
are the essence of Christianity. 

V. 23. κηρύσσομεν. Instead of seeking we offer; instead 
of demanding from God we command men in God’s name. 

Χριστὸν ἐσταυρωμένον, not “ Christ the crucified one,’ 
which would have been X. τὸν éot., but “ Christ as crucified.” 
Cf. 1 John iv. 3, in NC, T. X. ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, “as having 
come; ” 2 Cor. iv. 5, “ Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as 
servants ” (cf. Matt. xxviii. 5). 

σκάνδαλον (a later form of σκανδάληθροην, of the same root 
as scando and our slander). It was properly the piece of wood 
that falls when a creature enters a trap, like ἦπος and ῥόπτρον, 
on which cf. Hesych. It is synonymous with mays in Wisd, 
xiv. 11. It occurs in the metaphorical sense in LXX. but not 
in class. writers, who use προσκοπή (Polyb.; ef. 2 Cor, vi. 3). 
Cf. Gal. v. 11; John vi. 60, 61, where the reference is to the 
doctrine of the cross. Cf. Ignat., Hphes. 18; Justin M., Dial, 
ὁ. Tryph. 247. The word appears to have been often on the 
lips of the Jews. Philo designates any history in the Old 
Test. that would not fit into his allegories a “ scandal.” 

μωρία. Cf. Acts xvii. 18; Justin M., Apol. i. 18, ἐνταῦθα 
yap μανίαν ἡμῶν καταφαίνονται, δευτέραν χώραν μετὰ TOY 
ἄτρεπτον καὶ ἀεὶ ὄντα θεὸν καὶ γεννήτορα τὸν ἁπάντων ἀν- 
θρώπῳ σταυρωθέντι διδόναι ἡμᾶς λέγοντες. The cross was 
among the Romans infelix liguum, and crucifixion the punish- 


1 Mission of the Comforter, Note N. A masterly demonstration of the neces- 
sity of miracles will be found in Canon Mozley's Bampton Lectures, I. Cf. alsa: 


Bruce, Chief End of Revelation, ch. IV. — 


D. 


34 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ment of slaves and conquered enemies. ΤῸ preach what was 
already shame as God’s way of salvation was to add insult 
to folly. 

V. 24. αὐτοῖς δὲ τοῖς κλητοῖς, “ but to them, the called; ” 
that is, “those that believe,’ ver. 21. The other render- 
ing, “but to the called themselves,” does not yield any very 
tangible meaning, though Alford is wrong in saying it would 
require τοῖς κλητσῖς αὐτοῖς. Cf. John v. 36, αὐτὰ τὰ ἔργα, 
“not only My Father, but the works themselves testify.” Cf. 
Heb. xi. 11, καὶ αὐτὴ Σάῤῥα, “she also, Sarah;” 1 Thess. iv. 
16, αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος, ‘‘ He, the Lord.” 

Χριστόν, accus., not after a supplied κηρύσσομεν, but in 
appos. to X. ἐσταυρωμένον, and co-ordinate with σκάνδαλον 
and μωρίαν. Avvausv and σοφίαν are explanatory of Χριστόν. 

Θεοῦ δύναμιν and Θεοῦ σοφίαν look back to σημεῖον αἰτοῦσι 
and σοφίαν ζητοῦσι of ver. 22; but they add new elements to 
the conceptions. God’s power is more than a sign ; it is also 
the thing signified. God’s wisdom is more than the wisdom 
of which philosophers were in search. ‘There is an ascent in 
σκάνδαλον, σημεῖον, and Θεοῦ δύναμις, and a corresponding 
ascent in μωρία, σοφία, and Θεοῦ σοφία. Ambrose at the 
Council of Aquileia argued from this verse that Christ is eter- 
nal, because the power and the wisdom of God are eternal (cf. 
Ambros., De Fide V.7). Athanasius uses the same argument 
frequently. Augustine (De Trin. VI. 1) criticises and rejects 
it. EKvidently “power” and “wisdom,” when applied to 
Christ, mean the manifestation of those attributes in the Divine 
mature. Still a Gospel that consists in the preaching of a 
‘cross could not manifest them except for the reason that the 
‘erucified One is the power and wisdom of God in the same 
sense in which He is the Son of God. Im,effect, therefore, 
Ambrose is right. bis 

V. 25. Close of the argument. The reason’ why those 
that are called see in the crucified One the Christ of God is 
that the Gospel has proved stronger and wiser than anything 
human, inasmuch as it saves men, what the world has failed 
to do, 

τὸ μωρόν, “ the foolish thing; ”’ that is, the cross, as Chrys., 
Theod., Theophyl. explain it. A neut. adj. is often used, it is 
itrue, for an abstract noun. (Cf. Rom. ii. 4, τὸ χρηστόν for 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—I. 23-26. 35 


ἡ χρηστότης, ix. 22, τὸ δυνατόν for ἡ δύναμις ; Heb. vi. 17. 
Cf. Poppo on Thue. I. 9.) But it is inadmissible here. Besides 
the unmeaningness and in truth irreverence of such expressions 

s ‘*God’s foolishness,” “ God’s weakness,” the connection of 
the words tells strongly against this rendering. 


(2) That the Gospel is primarily the proclamation of a salva- 
tion through Christ is proved from the character of the Church. 


(i. 26-81). 


V. 26 is not, as Meyer and Alford explain, to be joined 
to what immediately precedes. The Apostle is entering upon 
his second argument to prove the peculiar nature of Christ- 
ianity. The cross has not been made void, but is powerful 
to save; and this is proved from the nature of the Church, the 
glory of which consists, not in the men that compose it, but 
in their union with Christ through God’s grace. 

βλέπετε, imper., “ look at,” ete. (cf. x. 18; Phil. iii. 2). So 
Chrys., ἐπισκέψασθε. In class. Greek we should have had 
ἐπέ with accus. 

κλῆσιν, not ‘ condition of life ” (Olshaus.), a meaning which 
κλῆσις never has, but “call.”? The notion that colours the 
whole passage, is that the characteristic and in the eyes of the 
world paradoxical elements in the Church are the result of a 
Divine act. Κλῆσις continues the notion of εὐδόκησεν (ver. 21). 
Outside the pale of the Church we are in the region of human 
effort, striving to attain its ends within the limits of law. In 
the action bf: Christianity on the world we witness the self- 
manifestation of the Divine will. 

ἀδελφοί. The Apostle is careful to assure his readers of 
their high Christian brotherhood, now that he directs their 
attention to the lowliness of their worldly position. 

σοφοὶ... δυνατοὶ. . . εὐγενεῖς. The. “wise” are 
evidently not only the philosophers, the class. meaning of 
the word, but educated men in a more general sense, synon. 
with πεπαιδευμένοι, and opp. to ἐἰδιώται. Such was Apollos 
(cf. Orig., c. Cels. III. 73, σοφοὺς κοινότερον Néywv πάντας τοὺς 
δοκοῦντας προβεβηκέναι μὲν ἐν μαθήμασιν, ἀποπεπτωκότάς 
δὲ εἰς τὴν ἄθεον ποχλυθεότητα). The δυνατοί are men of rank 
and political influence, opp. to δῆμος, “the commonalty,” as 


36 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


in Thue. 11. 65. Such was Sergius Paulus (Acts xin. 7) and 
Dionysius the Areopagite (Acts xvii. 34). The εὐγενεῖς meant, 
in the aristocratic ages of Greece, men of high descent, such 
as the Alemzeonide at Athens or the Bacchiade at Corinth. 
But when the democracy had been long established, the word 
degenerated in meaning and came to signify men whose 
ancestors were virtuous and wealthy, in fact the better sort 
of freemen, the honesti as opposed to the humiliores of the 
Empire (cf. Arist., Pol. VIII. 1. 7). In the mock funeral ora- 
tion, which Socrates puts into the mouth of Aspasia, Plato 
(Menex. p. 237) sneers at the readiness of the Athenian people 
to worship birth, and designates all the soldiers that fell in 
battle εὐγενεῖς, because ‘‘ their ancestors were not strangers, 
and their children, therefore, were children of the 501]. At 
Athens itself birth never ceased to have a charm (cf. Aischyl., 
Agam, 1009, Paley’s note; Adlian, Var. Hist. III. 18). There 
is, consequently, a climax in the Apostle’s words: Few 
intellectual men, few politicians, few cf the better class of free 
citizens, embraced Christianity.!’ The verse breathes the spirit 
of the Saviour’s appeal, as evidence of His divine authority, 
to the fact that the poor have the Gospel preached unto them. 
At first these three classes alike rejected Christianity. Five 
years before this St. Paul had himself been the laughing-stock 
of philosophers on Areopagus, the Epicureans deriding his 
doctrine of Divine providence, and the Stoics being offended 
at his calling all men to repent. Their scorn was, in most 
cases, the result rather of ignorance than of aversion. Gallio, 
the gentle brother of Seneca, thought the dispute between 
Jews and Christians “a question of words and names”; and 
Tacitus, himself a Stoic, described Christianity as an ‘ exitiabilis 
superstitio,” because he confounded it with “ the atrocious and 
shameful things that flowed from all parts of the world into 
Rome” (Ann. XV. 44). From the thinkers the politicians and 
rich men borrowed the principles and prejudices that deter- 
mined their attitude towards Christianity, at first affecting 
to despise it, afterwards persecuting its adherents. Eusebius 
(Hist. Eecles. 11. 25) says that Nero was the first of the 
autocrats to proclaim war against the religion of Christ. 


1 Tn Jer. ix. 23 the same threefold division occurs, but with πλούσιος instead 
of εὐγενής. The Apostle probably did not mean much more. 


TIE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—I. 26, 27. 37 


In less than. forty years the Apostle’s words would no longer 
represent the condition of things: When Pliny wrote his 
letter to Trajan about the Christians, a.p. 104—one of the 
earliest references in a pagan writer to Christianity—many 
Roman citizens of all ranks were to be found among them 
(Ep. ad. γα). X. 97). Flavius Clemens and his wife Domitilla, 
both cousins of Domitian, were charged with atheism, which 
meant a profession of Christ. Gibbon enumerates the philo- 
sophers that had embraced the faith of Christ in the next 
age after that of the Apostles. | 

The three classes here mentioned comprehended separate 
and irreconcilable elements. The thinkers were an aristocracy 
of intellect, despising public life, and content with the political 
extinction of Greece. The free citizens, under the Roman 
regime, gave themselves up to amassing wealth. 

κατὰ σάρκα. Chrys., κατὰ τὸ φαινόμενον, κατὰ TOV παρόντα 
βίον, κατὰ τὴν ἔξωθεν παίδευσιν. ‘ Flesh” came to have this 
meaning from the antithesis between the πνεῦμα, the super- 
natural element revealed in Christianity, and the merely 
human (cf. note on ii. 1). The explanation which derives 
the meaning of κατὰ σάρκα from the notion of kinship is 
hardly admissible in our passage, but it fits in well in x. 18. 

V. 27. τὰ μωρά, neut. for masc., in speaking of a class, 
especially to convey some degree of contempt (cf. Gal. iii. 
22, τὰ πάντα, “allmen”’?). So Thue. 11. 45; VI. 3. 

τοῦ κόσμου, not “in the opinion of the world” (Theod., 
Grot.), which would not apply to ἀγενῆ τοῦ κόσμου, ver. 28. 
Meyer understands it of the human race. But this does not 
account for the emphatic repetition of the word. It means, as 
in ver. 21, the kingdom of evil, in opposition to the Church; 
κόσμου being genit. of relation. ‘‘As appertaining to the 
world” (cf. James 11, 5). 

ἐξελέξατο, thrice repeated, because stress is laid, as before, 
on the fact that the historical development of Christianity has 
been determined by the free action of God’s grace. Here the 
reference is probably, not to God’s eternal election unto salva- 
tion (as in Eph. i. 4; 2 Thess. 11. 13), but to the call’of the 
Gospel, synonymous with κλῆσις, inasmuch as τὰ μωρὰ τοῦ 


1 Cf. Euseb., Hist. Eccles. III. 18; Justin M., Apol. 1. 6, ἄθεοι κεκλήμεθα. 


38 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


κόσμου naturally denotes the mass of things in the world. 
Out of the mass God chooses the Church. 

καταισχύνῃ, that is, because the foolish are chosen the 
wise ‘‘ begin with shame to take the lowest place.” The aor. 
subj. is the regular usage for the final clause in Hellenistic 
Greek. In the New Test. the opt. does not occur in real 
final clauses. 

V. 28. ἐξουθενημένα, “set at nought,” “flouted.” The 
word denotes, not mere contempt, but the expression of it 
(cf. Luke xxiii. 11). The class. equivalent for this Hellenistic 
word is προπηλακίζω. 

Ta μὴ ὄντα, “things that are no better than if they were 
not.” Ta οὐκ ὄντα would mean “things that actually do not 
exist,” which is Tertullian’s explanation of this verse (6. Mare. 
V.5). Cf. Xen., Anab. IV. iv. 15: τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς οὐκ ὄντα, 
and Soph., Antig. 13825: τὸν οὐκ ὄντα μᾶλλον ἢ μηδένα. 
Even in Rom. iv. 17, though τὰ μὴ ὄντα are non-existing, yet 
they are represented as being so regarded by the Creator. 
The distinction is neglected in the Homily that goes under the 
name of Clement’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, 21. 18, 

᾿ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς οὐκ ὄντας. The slave was τὸ μὴ ὄν. He had 
no side of his existence distinct from his master’s. He was 
ὅλως ἐκείνου. 

V. 29. ὅπως introduces the ultimate end, as ἕνα intro- 
duced the subsidiary purposes, vv. 27, 28. Originally ὅπως 
denoted manner. Hence, as a final particle, it is more 
objective than ἵνα, and introduces the ultimate aim, which 
is also the event: ‘‘and so it will come to pass’”’ (cf. 2 Thess. 
i. 1], 12). In Gal. iii. 14 we have ἵνα. . . iva, because both 
purposes are co-ordinate. Eph. v. 26 is an exception. To 
put men to shame would, as an ulterior object, be unworthy 
of God. It is worthy only in so far as it is subsidiary to 
the design of bringing all His creatures to glory in God. 

Πᾶσα σάρξ is a Hebraism for πᾶς ἄνθρωπος, but with a 
covert allusion to man’s weakness and unworthiness to be an 
object of boasting in the presence of God. The use of πᾶς (or 
πᾶσα σάρξ) μή for μηδείς is another Hebraism. The words 
are not an exact citation. But they are suggested by Ps. 
exliii. 2, and Jer. ix. 23. Man’s unworthiness is contrasted 
with the Christian’s special greatness. ὃ 


TIIE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—I. 27-30. 82 


ἐνώπιον Θεοῦ, “in God’s presence; ” that is, in the Church, 
in which God dwells (cf. xiv. 25). Those that are ἐν τῷ 
κόσμῳ are ἄθεοι (Hph. 11. 12). νώπιον occurs frequently 
as a prep. in LXX. and New Test., but its class. equivalent 
would be παρά with dat. (cf. Gal. iii. 11). 

V. 30. In contrast with their former low estate is their 
present glorious condition of having been placed by God in 
union with Christ. 

ἐξ αὐτοῦ δὲ ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν Χριστῷ ᾿Ιησοῦ. Chrys., Theod., 
Theophyl., Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Olshaus., Riickert, etc., con- 
nect ἐστε with ἐξ αὐτοῦ: “If you are in Christ, then you 
are born of God.” ‘This would set in a strong light the con- 
trast between their former and their present conditions. But 
the connection between being children of God and Christ’s 
being made their wisdom is too remote, and the phrase εἶναι 
ἐν Χριστῷ, as Meyer and De Wette observe, is so character- 
istic of the New Test., that we must not without very strong 
reason separate the words. Hofmann, Alford, Webster and 
Wilkinson, in a similar way disjoin ἐστε from ἐν Χριστῷ, but 
explain ἐξ αὐτοῦ of God’s free grace. They think an anti- 
thesis is intended between τὼ μὴ ὄντα (ver. 28) and ὑμεῖς ἐστε, 
between their former nothingness and the being which they 
now had. But it would not be in the Apostle’s manner not to 
add something to the notion in the second clause more than 
the bare opposite of the first clause; and the objection to 
Chrysostom’s interpretation is equally strong against Hof- 
mann’s, that it destroys the close connection between this 
verse and the next. We must explain ἐξ αὐτοῦ to mean, “ it 
is of God’s grace.” Rickert objects. But we have ἐξ ὑμῶν so 
used, as Neander points out, in Hph. ii. 8, where cf. Harless. 
We must also join ἐστε with ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. Yet the 
emphasis is on ἐξ αὐτοῦ. The idea already expressed in 
εὐδόκησεν (ver. 21), κλητοῖς (ver. 24), and the thrice repeated 
ἐξελέξατο (vv. 27, 28), is once more stated in another form. 
“It is of God’s free choice and through God’s power that ye 
are in Christ Jesus. Boast, therefore, not in yourselves, but in 
Christ Jesus, your wisdom, and in God, who united you to His 
Son.” 

ἐγενήθη, neut., “became,” not pass., “was made” (cf. 
1 Thess. i. 5; Acts iv. 4). The form is frequent in LXX. aud 


40 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


New Test., but in class. writers only Ionic and late Attic 
for ἐγένετο. Ἡμῖν must be placed after σοφία, as in N ACD, 
Vulg. So Lachm., Tisch., Westc. and Hort, ete. (B has σοφία 
ἡμῶν). The words ἀπὸ Θεοῦ must, therefore, be joined, not’ 
with σοφία, “ wisdom from God,” but with ἐγενήθη. We must 
distinguish also, between ἀπό and ὑπό. Though ἀπό is some- 
times used much like ὑπό, but indicating ‘‘a less direct 
agency ” (L. and 8.; Buttmann, N.S. p. 280), it cannot be so 
understood here; for Christ was the eternal Logos. But He 
came from God, and, when He had come, He was found to be 
wisdom for our advantage; profectus est a Deo tanquam fonte 
(cf. Ellendt, Lex. Soph. s.v. ἀπό, 11. 8). Similarly John vi. 46, 
παρά. ‘The reference is not to be restricted to Christ’s death, 
but must be extended to the constitution of Christ’s person, 
as God-Man and Mediator. 

σοφία. . . δικαιοσύνη τε καὶ ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ἀπολύτρωσις. 
He means more than that Christ was the source of our wisdom, 
etc. (Fritzsche on Rom. vii. 7). Christ is the manifestation 
of God’s wisdom, etc., in our behalf. As to the relations of 
these words among themselves, we observe: (1) That te καί 
joins δικαιοσύνη and ἁγιασμός closely together, as being both 
on the same plane of thought in relation and contrast to 
ἀπολύτρωσις. Words joined by τε καί are ἐκ παραλλήλου, 
and words attached afterwards by καί are adjuncts. Cf. 
Hartung, Partikell. I. p.102; Ellendt, Lex, Soph., who renders | 
Antig. 607 (611), τὸ τ᾽ ἔπειτα καὶ τὸ μέλλον Kai τὸ πρὶν 
ἐπαρκέσει νόμος ὅδε, “et in futurum et in quod instat tempus 
valebit ea lex, atque preeterea de preeterito.” (2) That τε 
kal . . . καί would naturally be used to introduce words 
explanatory of the σοφία. (This against Alford.) Cf. Xen, 
Mem. 1. i. 19, Σωκράτης δὲ πάντα μὲν ἡγεῖτο θεοὺς εἰδέναι, τά 
τε λεγόμενα καὶ πραττόμενα καὶ σιγῇ βουλευόμενα, where cf. 
Kiihner’s note; Thuc. II. 49, τὰ ἐντὸς ἥ τε φάρυγξ καὶ ἡ 
γλῶσσα. (3) That the position of σοφία, separated from 
δικαιοσύνη by ἡμῖν ἀπὸ Θεοῦ, suggests the interpretation. 
(4) That the Apostle’s purpose throughout is to represent 
the Gospel as the power and the wisdom of God. Choosing, 
calling into the Church the foolish, weak, and worthless, 
putting to shame the wise and mighty, bringing to nought 
things that are, uniting believers to His Son, sending His Son 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—I. 30. 41 


to be righteousness, sanctification and redemption—these are 
acts of God’s power and sovereign will. But in these thins 
we have the most perfect revelation of wisdom. Righteous- 
ness, sanctification and redemption are the great spiritual 
necessities of man; and, from the Apostle’s present point of 
view, they comprehend all the fruits of Christ’s death. For 
these reasons I think δικαιοσύνη, ἁγιασμός and ἀπολύτρωσις 
are explanatory of σοφία. So Neander, Hofmann, Heinrici. 
The view of Origen, In Johann. 1. 23, is adopted by most 
expositors, that righteousness, sanctification. redemption, are 
additional notions to that of wisdom. If this explanation be 
preferable, then De Lyra and Bengel’s suggestion may seem 
not to be far-fetched, that wisdom stands in contradistinction 
to foolish, righteousness to weak, sanctification and redemp- 
tion to ignoble. 

δικαιοσύνη, the state of having been justified, the result of 
δικαίωσις (cf. Rom. x. 4). The words δίκαιον εἶναι παρὰ τῷ 
Θεῷ (Rom. ii. 19) are explained by δικαιοῦσθαν παρὰ τῷ 
Θεῷ (Gal. π|. 11). The conception is borrowed from the Old 
Test. The laws of God are judgments, δικαιώματα (cf. Ps. 
xviii. 22), and even in those passages in which δικαιοσύνη 
means inherent purity (as Ps. xvii. 20, where it is paralleled 
by καθαριότης τῶν χειρῶν) it regards that moral condition as 
the ground of an objective justification. In the theocracy 
ethics necessarily assumed a forensic form. It must do so in 
all primitive nations, when morality is not yet distinguished 
from religion, nor religion from politics. Indeed, the develop- 
ment of Greek thought is a gradual unravelling of these 
threads of human life. In Plato’s Republic, for instance, the 
idea of the State occupies the place assigned in the Old Test. 
to the Invisible King. Consequently the moral condition of 
the individual is determined, in the one and the other, by his 
objective relation to the State or King; that is, the central 
idea of morality is righteousness. So in the teaching ot 
Christ (cf. Matt. vi. 33). The outward theocracy has passed 
away, and the Greek conception of the πόλις gives place to a 
deeper conception, which represents every man as a πολίτεια 
under the rule of God. This is unquestionably St. Paul’s 
point of view. The Ep. of Barnabas also speaks of δικαιοσύνη 
κρίσεως. Now believers are thus forensically righteous, not 


49 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 


in themselves, but in Christ (cf. 2 Cor. v. 21). Christ is not 
only their justification, but also the ever-abiding cause of their 
remaining justified ; that is, He is their righteousness. 

ἁγιασμός. Another conception derived from the Old Test., 
but assimilated and transformed by Christianity. Jehovah 
being King of Israel, loyalty was identical with consecration 
of spirit to God; and as Jehovah was king by indefeasible 
right, not by his subjects’ choice, their consecration must be 
more than self-devotion ; it must be a condition in which they 
are placed by God. ‘This, applied to the relation of God to 
believers, means: jist, that the Christian character is not 
mere rectitude, but holiness; not only conformity to moral 
law as the authoritative rule of life, but also assimilation to the 
moral character of a personal God springing from love; second, 
that this holiness is the result of a Divine act of sanctifica- 
tion—not, like virtue,a human attainment, but the creation 
of God’s Spirit. Hence ἁγιασμός here, not ἁγιωσύνη (2 Cor. 
vil. 1). hough there is a tendency in the New Test. to use 
verbals in -yos, from verbs in -dfw and -ἔζω, to denote a 
condition (cf. Lobeck, Phryn. p. 511), the forensic meaning 
assigned to δικαιοσύνη necessitates our understanding ἁγιασμός 
of the act of sanctification or moral consecration. Both 
ἁγιωσύνη and ἁγιασμός are found only in LXX., New Test. 
and ecclesiastical writers. 

ἀπολύτρωσις. First, Christ has delivered us from the guilt 
of sin by the payment of a ransom (λύτρον), which is Christ 
Himself (cf. Eph. i. 7; Col. 1. 14). Second, as a consequence, 
He will also deliver us from the moral servitude of sin, and 
this also is brought to pass through the ransom (ef. Eph. 1. 14; 
iv. 30; Rom. viii. 23). In the former, Christ is our redemp- 
tion by being the formal cause of our justification; in the 
latter, our redemption means the end and crown of our 
sanctification. As the former .is already included in δικαιο- 
σύνη, redemption here must be restricted to final deliverance. 
So Chrys. 

These three conceptions are a summary of the Gospel, from 
the Apostle’s present point of view—God justifies, the Spirit 
sanctifies, Christ redeems. In these three aspects of the 
Gospel Christ is come to us from God as wisdom; or, to 
borrow the more sharply-cut phrases of a later age, Christ 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—I. 30-11. l. 42 


fulfils the office of Prophet by fulfillmg the offices of Priest 
and King. 

V. 31. Conclusion of the section. “If the Church mani- 
fests God’s power and wisdom, let the believer boast, not in 
men, but in Christ, the source of the Church’s spiritual pri- 
vileges of justification, sanctification and final redemption.” 

iva. On the anacoluthon cf. Winer, Gr. ὃ LXIV.7b; Butt- 
mann, N.S. p. 201. The words are a free citation from Jer. 
ix. 23, 24, with an allusion perhaps to Isa. xlv. 25 (cf. 2 Cor. 
x. 17; Phil. iii. 3). The Apostle detaches from their connec- 
tion in LXX. the words that are to his purpose. Cf. Clem. 
Rom., Ad Cor. 12, where the prophet’s and the Apostle’s 
words are cited together. 

ἐν, denoting the object of the boast, as in Rom. 1]. 17; v. 3, 
11 (cf. χαίρω ἐν, Phil. 1. 18; Col. 1. 24). In class. Greek ἐπέ 
would be used, not ἐν. 


(3) That the Gospel is primarily the proclamation of a salva- 

tion through Christ is proved from the power of the ministry. 
(ii. 1-5). 

The messenger is like the message. As the Gospel is the 
foolish thing of God, so the Apostle has no wisdom and no 
utterance of his own (ii. 1,2). As the Gospel is the weak 
thing of God, so the Apostle came to Corinth in weakness, 
fear and trembling (ii. 3). But as Christ is the power and 
wisdom of the Gospel, so the Spirit is the power and wisdom 
of the ministry (11. 4). Finally, as the Gospel is the mystery 
of God and, therefore, a Divine power, so the ministry is a 
Divine power and, therefore, the manifestation of Divine 
wisdom (ver. 5, leading to ver. 6). 

Ch. 11. 1. κἀγώ, not “I as well as the other Apostles ” 
(De Wette), but “I too in my own person”; that is, “my 
ministry represents the character of the Gospel: the Gospel 
is a proclamation, I am a preacher.” Cf. Matt. iii. 4, αὐτὸς δὲ 
᾿Ιωάννης, “John in his own person as distinguished from John 
as the voice of Christ;’’ Rom. vii. 25, αὐτὸς ἐγώ, “I myself 
apart from Christ.” 

ἐλθὼν . . . ἦλθον, an instance of the pleonastic use of 
the participle, which occurs even in class. Greek, οἵ, Hdt. 1X. 


44 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


509, ἔφασαν λέγοντες ; Plat., Phoed. p. 164, ἀπελθὼν ὥχετο, 
espec. in LXX., in imitation of the Heb. idiom, as Ex, iii. 7, and 
New Test., as Acts vii. 34; Heb. vi. 14. It emphasizes, how- 
ever, the notion of the verb. The Apostle’s having come to 
Corinth was itself worthy of mention. The Gospel was not a 
plant of native growth. Christianity is not a mere develop- 
ment of the ancient world, but a new and supernatural 
beginning, 

Kata, not “by way of” (De Wette, Alford, etc.), but “ after 
the model of,” “ taking as my standard.” So even in Phil. 
ii. 3, κατὰ ἐριθείαν, “ in accordance with the dictates of party- 
spirit’ (cf. Plat., Rep. p. 446 B, κατὰ τὸν τῶν σκυτοτόμων 
βών). The Apostle’s ideal was not pre-eminence as a philo- 
sopher or an orator. He wished to “fashion” his ministry 
“after ”’ the Gospel he preached. The words ἀλλὰ κατὰ τὸ 
κήρυγμα τοῦ σταυροῦ may be mentally supplied. 

The clause ov καθ᾽ ὑπεροχὴν λόγου ἢ σοφίας is better con- 
nected with καταγγέλλων than, as Hofmann, with ἦλθον. In 
that case the Apostle would probably have written ἀλλὰ 
κατήγγειλα. 

καταγγέλλων. The pres. implies that he began to declare 
as soon as he came to Corinth. Cf. Thuc. II. 73, ἦλθον ἀπαγ- 
γέλλοντες ; Xen., Cyr. VII. iv. 7, ἧκον ἐρωτῶντες. So Acts 
xv. 27; xx. 25; 1 Cor. iv. 14; xiv. 6. Itis pres. of manner, 
to be distinguished from fut. of purpose. ‘‘ Came by way of 
declaring.” 

For μαρτύριον (BD Vulg.) & (first hand) A have μυσ- 
τήριον, which is adopted by Westc. and Hort, Rev. Vers. 
Though the MS. evidence is pretty evenly balanced, and 
though elsewhere “the mystery of Christ” is the invariable 
phrase, still μυστήριον is probably the true reading. The 
notion that the Gospel contains God’s wisdom in the garb of 
folly is pertinent to the Apostle’s purpose, and is precisely 
what “mystery” implies. The Apostle is showing the re- 
semblance between his declaration of the Gospel and the 
Gospel itself. Both are wisdom ; both appear to be folly. Cf, 
Justin M., Dial. 7, οὐ yap μετὰ ἀποδείξεως πεποίηνται τότε 
τοὺς λόγους, ἅτε diwtépw πάσης ἀποδείξεως, ὄντες ἀξιόπιστοι 
μάρτυρες τῆς ἀληθείας. 

τοῦ Θεοῦ. De Wette, Meyer, etc., consider it to be object. 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—II. l, 2. 45 


genit., as the Gospel declares concerning God that He raised 
Christ from the dead (cf. xv. 15; 1 John iy. 14). If we 
read μυστήριον, then Θεοῦ is necessarily subj. genit.; and it 
is probably so if we read μαρτύριον. For the Apostle’s pur- 
pose is to state that, not only the Gospel, but also the ministry 
is from God. So Calvin, Grot., Beng., Osiand., Hofm. (cf. 
1 John v. 9, 11; 1 Pet. iv. 17;-2-Tim. i. 8; Rev. i. 9; Acts 
xiil. 26; 1 Thess. ii. 4). The same idea is at the root of the 
Old Test. revelation (cf. Isa. viii. 16). 

V.2. He proves that his ideal was not pre-eminence in 
utterance or wisdom, by avowing his previous determination 
to have no sort of philosophy—except that -philosophy of 
God which is the opposite of all philosophy of man, Christ 
crucified. 

ov yap ἔκρινα, not “I did not judge that I knew ” (Hofm.), 
but “1 determined not to know.” The latter rendering is 
the only one that confers any moral value on his abstaining 
from preaching after the manner of a philosopher or a rhe- 
torician (cf. vii. 837; 2 Cor. ii. 1). Ou the transference of the 
negative, as in ov φασιν, cf. Jelf, Gr. § 745. 2 (cf. od θέλω, 
x20). 

τι εἰδέναι (omitting τοῦ) is the reading of NAD. So 
Lachm., Tisch., ete (cf. Acts xx. 7; but τοῦ in Acts xxvii. 1). 
Origen and Neander emphasize ἐν ὑμῖν, as if the Apostle 
changed his method when he came to Corinth, having in 
Athens preached at first natural religion (Acts xvi. 22), but 
in Corinth begun with the peculiar doctrine of Christ’s death. 
Similarly F. W. Robertson. But such a supposition is really 
inconsistent with the radical change which the man’s entire 
being had undergone at his conversion. Indeed it makes his 
preaching in Athens an unwarrantable presumption and his 
conduct morally faulty. 

I. X. καὶ τούτον ἐσταυρωμένον, a formal and emphatic ex- 
pression for the person and death of Christ—the two con- 
stituents of His atonement; and it was, not merely the 
. disgrace of the servile swpplicium of the cross, but the doctrine 
of the atonement that offendcd the world. ‘he Apostles’ 
words are perfectly consistent with the supreme place assigned 
in the Acts and by St. Paul to Christ’s resurrection. For he 
is speaking of the living Jesus, who appeared to him on the 


46 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 


way, not of a theological conception nor of the Logos assuming 
human nature. 

V. 3. The consequence of that determination was a union 
of personal fear and ministerial power. From the resemblance 
in folly between the message and the preacher, the Apostle 
passes on to the resemblance between them in point of weakness. 

καὶ ἐγώ, emphatic; as in ver. 1, contrasting the preacher 
and the message. 

ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ x.T.d., not merely persecutions (Chrys.), but 
denoting that complex state of mind which began in a sense 
of spiritual prostratiou, then assumed the special form of fear, 
and found expression at last in trembling. It is not the fear 
of external danger, but an absorbing sense of responsibility 
(cf. 2 Cor. vii. 15; Eph. vi. 5; Phil. 1. 12); the mysterious 
dread felt by the great preachers of all ages and in all sections 
of the Church, and more or less constantly accompanying the 
spiritual power of the ministry. But the Apostle had special 
causes of discouragement. He came to Corinth from Athens, 
where he had met with very partial success and not founded 
a Church. At Corinth he was beset with difficulties through 
the malevolence of the Jews (cf. Acts xviii. 6). His sad- 
ness and gloom find utterance in the First and still more in 
the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, written at the time 
from Corinth. The word συνείχετο (Acts xviii. 5), whether 
it means ‘‘ straitened in spirit ”’ or “ hard-pressed by enemies” 
or “zealously intent on the work of the ministry,” implies 
that he was in a state of unusual dejection. The Lord 
Jesus vouchsafed to appear to him in a night-vision for his 
encouragement. 

ἐγενόμην πρὸς ὑμᾶς, “came to you and was among you” 
(cf. xvi. 10; Matt. xiii. 56). 

V.4, Having drawn a twofold comparison between him- 
self and his message, the Apostle proceeds to state in what 
the success of his ministry, which he calls τὸ κήρυγμώ μου, 
and the greatness of the Gospel, which he calls ὁ λόγος μου, 
essentially consists. Neither of the two depends on the power 
of demonstration; both manifest their excellence by the de- 
monstration of power. 

Various attempts have been made to distinguish between 
λόγος and κήρυγμα, such as “private conversation” and 


A 


» 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—II. 2-4. 47 


‘public preaching” (De Lyra, Bengel, Neander, Olshausen) ; 
or “λόγος the more general term and κήρυγμα the more par- 
ticular”? (Meyer); or “λόγος, speech, a matter of language 
and dialectic, κήρυγμα, preaching, a matter of conviction 
and participation ” (De Wette). The last explanation comes 
nearest. A comparison of the verse with ver. 18; Rom. xvi. 
25; Tit. i. 3, leads to the inference that λόγος means the 
Gospel, the revelation of the eternal mystery ; κήρυγμα, the 
announcement of that mystery, the preaching of that Gospel. 

μου. .. μου, emphatic; contrasting his message with the 
dogmas of philosophers, his method with theirs. 

πειθοῖς, an anomalous form for πιθανοῖς, but formed, as 
Heinrici observes, after the manner of φειδός from φείδομαι. 
It occurs only here. The reading in Kuseb., Prep. Hvang. 
I. 8, ἐν πειθοῖ ἀνθρωπίνης σοφίας λόγων occurs more than 
once in Origen and partly corresponds to the rendering in D 
and Ambrosiaster, in persuasione humane sapientic. It is 
adopted by Beza. Grotius conjectures πείστοῖς. The evidence 
of δὶ ΒΟ D in favour of ἐν πειθοίς σοφίας λόγοις is decisive. 
But the meaning is well-given by Husebius, 7b., tas μὲν 
ἀπατηλὰς καὶ σοφιστικὰς πιθανολογίας παραιτούμενος, and 
by Cyril of Jerusalem, Cut. XIII. 8, οὐ σοφιστικαὶ κατασκευαὶ 
κινοῦνται νῦν, ἐπεὶ διαλύονται The Apostle had not the 
“persuasive accent, to make the worse appear the better 
reason.” With a contemptuous touch of irony, that reminds 
one of Socrates in the Gorgias and Apology, he disclaims all 
skill in rhetoric, the spurious art of persuading without in- 
structing, held, nevertheless, in high repute at Corinth. But 
when the Apostle speaks of ‘‘ the demonstration of Spirit and 
of power,” he soars into a region of which Socrates knew 
nothing. Socrates sets σοφία against πειθώ, the Apostle 
regards both as being on well-nigh a common level from the 
higher altitude of the Spirit. 

That an antithesis is intended in the clause seems evident. 
Persuasive means effective, powerful; and wisdom means de- 
monstration. He contrasts these persuasive words of wisdom, 
that is, the power of human demonstration, with the demon- 
stration of Divine power. 


1 The name of sophist was hateful even to heathen wrilers. Cf. M. Anton. 
VI. 30, where it is said in praise of Antoninus Pius that he was no sophist. 


48 THE FIRST EPISTLE TC THE CORINTHIANS. 


ἐν, “in the form of” (cf. xiv. 6; Jelf, Gr. § 622, 3). Itis 
more than the instrumental dat. 

ἀποδείξει, “ demonstration,” not “proclamation ” (Est.), or 
* display ” (Vulg. osfensiune, as if it were ἐπιδείξει). For the 
antithesis of persuasion and demonstration, cf. Plat., Thecet. 
162 E, εἰ ἀποδείξεσθε πιθανολογίᾳ, and Arist., Hth. Nic. I. 
ili. § 4, παραπλήσιον yap φαίνεται μαθηματικοῦ τε πιθανο- 
λογοῦντος ἀποδέχεσθαι καὶ ῥητορικὸν ἀποδείξεις ἀπαιτεῖν. 
This ἀποδείξις is the positive side of the ἐλέγξις mentioned 
by Christ (John xvi. 8). Refutation of the principles of the 
world and demonstration of the Gospel are the two sides of 
the work of the Spirit. Hence there can be no doubt that the 
Spirit of God is here meant (cf. ver. 14). The Spirit proves 
the truth by power. His demonstration consists partly in 
an inward illumination that lends to spiritual objects a self- 
evidencing clearness (cf. Matt. xi. 25-27; xvi. 17; John xiv. 
17, 20, 26; xv. 26; xvi. 13; 2 Cor. iv. 6; Eph.i. 18), partly also 
in a Divine energy moving, without constraining, the will. It 
was a taunt of the heathen that Christian teachers, instead 
of proving their doctrines, demanded faith. On this pretext 
the Emperor Julian excluded them from educated society (ef. 
Theod., Grace. Aff. p. 12). Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 13, where τὸ πνεῦμα 
τῆς πίστεως means the Holy Spirit as the mover of the will 
and author of faith. (Cf. Phil. 11. 13.) 

πνεύματος and δυνάμεως are, like σοφίας, subj. genit (ef. 
ver.13; 1 Thess.i. 5). ‘ Spirit and power” is not a hendiadys 
for powerful Spirit. Neither does “demonstration of power ” 
mean miracles (so Chrys.), which would have been plur., » 
δυνάμεων. The error of such writers as Grotius, South, Stil- 
lingfleet, who acknowledge no demonstration of the Spirit save 
the gift of tongues and the power of doing miracles, is re- 
sponsible for much of the unspiritual character of Christian 
evidences. Similarly Lessing (Essay on Demonstration, ete.), 
understands prophecy by Spirit and miracles by power. 

V.5. Conclusion of the Third Argument; co-ordinate, 
therefore, with i. 31. "Iva denotes, not the Apostle’s purpose 
in the ministry, but God’s purpose in rendering the Gospel 
and its effective preaching a folly and a weakness in the eyes 
of man. ep 

πίστις. The previous paragraph ended with an exhortation 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—II. 5, 6. 49 


to boast in Christ. The present argument closes with the 
Divine purpose that men should trust in God. When 
preached, the Gospel becomes not merely an object of boasting 
—it is that in itself—but also an object of trust. Ἐν means, 
therefore, first of all, the object of faith, as in Mark i. 15. 
The power of God’s Spirit is no less to be believed in than 
the efficacy of Christ’s death. But ἐν means also that, not the 
wisdom of men, but the power of God, is the true originator of 
faith. It denotes the foundation on which faith in Christ rests 
(De Lyra), or the earth in which the roots of faith fasten and 
out of which the tree and the sap of life within it spring. 
Hence πίστις is more than an intellectual conviction of the 
truth (Baur, Newt. Theol. p. 154). It is trust in God; and 
this saving trust grows out of the all-powerful activity of the 
Divine Spirit. Of. Eph. iii..18, ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἐῤῥιζωμένοι. 


C. Szconp ARGUMENT AGAINST THE Factions. 
(ii. 6-11. 4). 

Christianity, then, is primarily a Gospel, not a philosophy ; 
and, as such, it addresses itself to all, out of the evil world 
forming for itself a Church, and creating the supernatural life 
of faith. But, when it finds fit audience, Christianity is the 
truest and divinest philosophy. Regarded from that side too, 
as a wisdom and a knowledge, it is a protest against factious 
boasting in men. For, first, it is God’s wisdom ; second, it is 
revealed inwardly by the Spirit; third, it is understood only 
by the spiritual man. 


(1) Christianity is God’s Wisdom. 
(ii. 6-9). 

V.6. σοφίαν, not “ practical wisdom,” Plato’s ἡ περὶ τὸν 
βίον σοφία, but, to borrow Aristotle’s happy definition, “ the 
science of the highest objects with its ‘head on” (Lith. Nic. 
VI. vii. 3). The notion of true philosophy is implied in 
σοφία here, as always in Scripture, except when it is used 
ironically. Cf. Eurip., Bacch., 898, τὸ σοφὸν δ᾽ οὐ σοφία. 

λαλοῦμεν. St. Paul and the older Apostles were, therefore,, 
agreed not only in their facts (cf. xv. 11), but also in their 
interpretation of the facts. He says “we” to censure covertly 

E. 


50 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the party-spirit in Corinth that set one Apostle against another. 
If the Tiibingen theory were in any vital sense true, the 
Apostle could not have said λαλοῦμεν, either honestly or 
otherwise. It is not unlikely that he intends a special 
reference to the Churches of Asia Minor, where he now 
was (xvi. 8), which seem to have attained greater spiritual 
maturity than the Churches of Macedonia and Achaia. 

ev, “ among,” in consessu, not “in the opinion of” (Grot.), 
a meaning which ἐν has not except in pronominal phrases, 
as ἐν ἐμοί. 

τελείοις, not “sincere” (Grot.), nor “endowed with the 
charismata of prophecy and tongues” (Iren., Her. V. 6), but 
“full-grown,” as is proved by the use of νήπιος in iii. 1 (ef. 
xiv. 20; Eph. iv. 138,14; Heb.v.18). Soin Philo, Leg. Alleg., 
pp. 57, 58, οὐδένος yap τούτων ὁ τέλειος δεῖται . . . TO δὲ 
νηπίῳ [χρεία] παραινέσεως καὶ διδασκαλίας. Hence, all 
Christians are not τέλειοι, as Clem. Al. (Peed. I. 6, υἱοποιού- 
μενοι τέλειούμεθα), and Chrys. (τελείους τοὺς πεπιστευκότας) 
thought. The Gospel is the power of God to every believer 
(ef. 1. 24; Rom. i. 16). But with the growth of the Christian 
‘character a capacity to discern spiritual things is created and 
developed. Origen aptly observes that some have come into 
the Church from the wisdom that is according to the flesh, 
‘and of those some have advanced even to the wisdom that is 
Divine. 

In the opinion of the majority of commentators from Castalio 
‘to our own day the words imply that the Apostles taught 
deeper and more mysterious doctrines to mature Christians 
‘than to the less advanced ; and in early times Origen (6. Cels. 
III, 19) adduces this passage to prove the distinction between 
the fideles or baptized and the catechumens. But on the 
‘question what these doctrines were, they are not agreed. 
Meyer and De Wette think they were all questions connected 
with the future development of Messiah’s kingdom. Osiander 
‘explains them of the counsels of grace, the person of Christ, 
the fall of man, the establishment of the kingdom of God. In 
addition to the arbitrariness of such conjectures, the view is 
‘open to some objections. First, the Apostle in effect tells us 
in the subsequent verses what this wisdom consists of. It 
includes “ the things which God hath prepared for them that 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—Il. 6. 51 


love Him;” which “ the princes of this world” did not know ; 
which are “freely given to us of God.” But these things 
the Apostle preached to all alike. Without them Christianity 
is not a Gospel. In Col. i. 26 the “word of God,” that is the 
Gospel, is itself called “the mystery hidden from the ages.” 
In Eph. vi. 19 τὸ μυστήριον tod εὐαγγελίου means “the 
mystery which is the Gospel.” It is also evident that the 
wisdom which the rulers of this world did not know is the 
same as the wisdom which babes in Christ could not under- 
stand (ii. 1). Second, the distinction of exoteric and esoteric 
doctrines is not in character with the first age of the Church. 
That Paul the missionary preacher should withhold from the 
world the profoundest truths, from which all other truths 
derived their value and power, is hard to believe. Chrys. 
virtually admits it when he acknowledges “ that there were no 
catechumens then” (Hom. im xii. 3); and the distinction of 
fideles and catechumeni was but the fixed and artificial form of 
the distinction which expositors discover in this verse.! It is 
true that in Heb. v. 11-vi. 3 we perceive the beginning of a 
tendency to divide theological truth into sets of doctrines. 
But the ororyeta of that passage consist of the broad outlines 
in the spiritual history of the believer, repentance and faith, 
baptism and laying-on of hands, resurrection and judgment, 
whereas here the doctrines which the Apostle says he preached 
to the Corinthians, who were babes in Christ, cluster around 
the person and death of Christ. We infer that the Apostle 
distinguishes, in our passage, not two classes of truths, but 
two aspects of the same truths. He is, in fact, stating 
one of Philo’s fundamental distinctions, but with a difference. 
Christian wisdom does not consist in discovering allegories 
in the history and ordinances of the Old Testament. Even in 
the Epistle of Barnabas the distinction between πίστις and 
γνῶσις is more like Philo’s than St. Paul’s. It is Clement 
of Alexandria that first rises to a worthy conception of the 
Apostle’s words. But his account of it is marred by one 
defect, which is, that he describes πέστις as an intellectual 


_ 1%n the Church of Alexandria alone was there a conscious attempt in 
the ante-Nicene period to introduce into Christian teaching a distinction 
resembling, as Origen (c. Cels. II. 7) confesses, the distinction of exoteric and 
esoteric, formerly ascribed to Pythagoras and Aristotle, 


52 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


apprehension of truth, not as the trust of the heart and an act 
of the will. It was this error that gave rise to a disciplina 
arcant in Clement and to Origen’s principle of exegesis, that 
Scripture has a natural, a moral, and a mystical meaning. 
Nevertheless, Clement’s distinction is pre-eminently Pauline. 
For the Apostle here says that Christ as He is the power of 
God is the object of trust, and that Christ as He is the wisdom 
of God is the object of knowledge. Cf. espec. Clem. ΑἹ. 
Strom. VII. p. 865 Potter, ἡ μὲν πίστις... περαιουμένη. 

σοφίαν dé. On δέ introducing a limitation cf. note on i. 6; 
Rom. iii. 22. 

οὐδὲ τῶν ἀρχόντων. Tertullian (c. Marc. V. 6) explains the 
rulers to be the secular power; Origen’s view (de Princ. III. 
ii. 1) that evil spirits are meant, as in John xii. 31; 2 Cor. 
iv. 4, arose from the early patristic doctrine of the atone- 
ment, that Christ gave His life aransom to the evil ono. (Cf. 
Orig., Comm. in Matt. xvi. 8; Cyril of Jerus., Cat. XII. 15.) 
Ambrosiaster explained the verse in the same way. So also 
Cajetan and Estius. But it is inconsistent with ver.9. The 
Apostle must mean the wise, the mighty, and the noble of 
1. 206. But he regards the world under the figure of a king- 
dom (cf. 2 Cor. iv. 4; Eph. ii. 2; John xiv. 30). He con- 
templates the two antagonistic principles in their historical 
manifestations. 

TOV καταργουμένων, pres.; the Divine purpose of destroying 
the “ world ” is already beginning to find its accomplishment. 
“Far from speaking this world’s wisdom, we speak a wisdom 

‘that is actually bringing it to nought.” The Apostle does 
not, therefore, refer to the future coming of Christ (Meyer), 
nor to the evanescent nature of earthly things (Chrys.). Cf. 
Is ).xix, 12, 

V. 7. The emphasis in ver. 6 is on σοφίαν, in ver. 7 
on λαλοῦμεν. Hence ἐν μυστηρίῳ must be connected with 
λαλοῦμεν (De Wette, Meyer), not with ἀποκεκρυμμένην 
(Aquinas, Grotius), which would have been τὴν ἐν μ. ἀποκε- 
κρυμμένην, nor with σοφίαν (Theophyl., Beza, Hvans), for 
σοφία is left purposely anarthrous: “a wisdom of God.” 

ἐν μυστηρίῳ (from μύειν, to close the mouth; ef. Curtius, 
Grundz. p. 338). The word “ mystery” has four meanings, 
which may be arranged almost in chronological order: (1) 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—II. 6, 7. 53 


* That which it is forbidden to divulge except to the initiated.” 
Such were the secrets of the political and religious festivals 
held in most cities of Greece; cf. Lobeck, Aglaoph., Lleus. § 6. 
We have a trace of this meaning in Matt. xii. 11. In 2 Pet. 
i. 16 it is said that the Apostles did not follow the false 
track (ἐξακολουθήσαντες) of rationalised myths (σεσοφισμένους 
μύθοις), but were eye-witnessesby initiation (ἐπόπται) of 
Christ’s majesty (cf. Col. ii. 3). (2) “That which cannot 
be known except by revelation” (cf. Rom. xvi. 25; Eph. 
iii. 8,4; Col. i.26. Add Ignat., Ad Hphes. 19). (3) “Sacred 
ceremonies that have a symbolical or spiritual significance ;” 
‘sometitnes restricted to denote the Eucharist. After the time 
of Tertullian this is the prevailing signification, and its Lat. 
equivalent is sacramentum. (4) ‘‘ A truth that transcends the 
human intellect to comprehend,” and this may be either an 
absolute impossibility or impossible till the Spirit of God gives 
an inward revelation. In the present passage the word in- 
cludes somewhat of all these meanings, except the third. The 
word τέλειος, while it signifies “ full-grown,” contains an 
allusion to initiation into mysteries. The Apostle’s words are 
apparently parodied by the Gnostic Valentine. Cf. Epiphan., 
Ο. Her. 1. 31. 

ἀποκεκρυμμένην, that is, not only it is passed over in silence 
(cf. Rom. xvi. 25), but also it is intentionally concealed by 
God; for it was a mystery of His will (cf. Eph.i.9; Col. 
i, 27; Baruch iii. 37). 

ἥν, that is, the wisdom of God; not-simply the plan of 
salvation (Hst., Billr.), but the Divine wisdom which the 
mature Christian sees in it. 

προώρισεν, “ fore-ordained,”’ before it was revealed. Eph. 
i. ὃ and Ellicott’s note. The word is to be connected with 
“unto our glory.” This is the proof that it excels the wisdom 
of the world and our warrant for speaking it. To asia | 
γνωρίσαι after προώρισε destroys the meaning. 

εἰς δόξαν ἡμῶν. The wisdom of the great men of the world 
ends in their destruction; God’s wisdom leads, not only to 
our salvation, but to our ‘pier. which is the Christian con- 
ception of happiness. Εὐδαιμόνια does not occur in the New 
Test. Ζόξα expresses two notions that are alien to the Greek 
couception of happiness ; that the blessedness of the righteous 


54 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


is in the highest degree abundant and that it is a reflection 
of God’s blessedness. The world’s wisdom stops at a mystery, 
and this is man’s misery; God’s wisdom reveals a mystery 
Peyong, and in receiving new revelations of this mystery 
man’s supreme happiness ie ever consists. 

V.8. This verse is at once a proof of the previous state- 
ment that this wisdom was hidden by God and a preparation 
of the reader for the argument of the following verses, that 
men cannot know the wisdom of God without the illumination 
of the Spirit. 

ἥν, that is, the wisdom (Chrys. indirectly, De Wette, Meyer), 
uot the glory (Cor. a Lap., Billr., Stanley), which would be 
irrelevant and superfluous (cf. Rom. viii. 18; 1 John ii. 2). 

ἐσταύρωσαν. ‘The contrast between “they crucified ” and 
“the Lord of glory” is intentional (cf. Heb. xii. 2). Christ 
was put to death by the rulers of the world as the representa- 
tives of its highest wisdom, which has proved itself foolishness 
in not’ knowing the Son of God. The triumphant antithesis 
to this verse is Gal. vi. 14. The world that crucified Christ 
has been crucified by the power of Christ’s cross. 

Κύριον τῆς δόξης, not “the dispenser of glory” (Aug., De 
Trin. 1. xii. 24, quod ipse glorificet sanctos suos), neither is it 
a Hebraism for “ glorious Lord” (Heydenr.), but ‘‘ the Lord 
to whom glory belongs as His native right.” It is genit. 
of characteristic ἜΕ ΗΝ (cf. Acts vil. 2; Eph. i, 17; .1 Thess. 
v. 23). Glory is the peculiar attribute of Jehovah among 
all the gods (cf. Ps. xxix. 1). The expression is theologically 
important because it implies that Jesus was Lord of glory, 
that is, Jehovah, and that this Lord of glory died (ef. Acts 
iii. 15"). It is an instance of the communicatio idiomatum, in 
reference to the meaning of which the Lutheran and the 
Reformed Churches divided ; the former maintaining that the 
attributes of the one of the two natures in the person of Christ, 
that is to say, the Divine nature, are communicated to the 
other, that is, the human; the latter teaching that the acts 

1 Cf. Orig., Comm. in Rom. i. 6: ‘Omnia que carnis sunt ascribuntur et 
Verbo, quomodo et que Verbi sunt predicantur in carne. Jesum vero et 
Christum et Dominum invenimus sepe ad utramque naturam referri, ut est 
illud, Unus Dominus noster Jesus Christus, per quem omnia, et iterum, Si 


enim cognovissent nunquam Dominum majestatis crucitixissent. ”» So Athan., 
C. Apollin. IL. 16; Aug., De Trin. 1. xiii. 28. Cf. Aquinas in loc. 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—II. 7-9. 55 


of either of the two natures are the acts of the Divine-human 
Person of the God-Man. The use of Κύριος involves a refer- 
ence in δόξα to more than Christ’s exaltation. 

V. 9. Not only was God’s wisdom unknown to the princes 
of this world, but those things in which it manifests itself are 
in their nature such that their inner meaning cannot be known 
without a revelation of the Spirit. within. The verse is more 
than a proof (Cor. a Lap., Bengel) that the princes of the 
world did not know God’s wisdom. God’s wisdom has mani- 
fested itself in things and in facts. But these facts of 
Christianity have an inner life and meaning, which is hid, not 
merely from God’s enemies, but also from all creatures, and 
must be inwardly revealed in order to be known. ‘I'he Apostle 
does not give that revelation. God’s Spirit bestows it on the 
initiated. We must have the Spirit to know the things of 
God, though in words they may be spoken to all. The Apostle 
himself can only tell us what they are not. They are not what 
eye hath seen, that is, the glories of the visible creation; nor 
what ear hath heard, that is, doctrines taught by a master to 
his disciples; nor what springs up in the heart of man, that 
is, the creations of imagination and desire. The ascent is to 
be noticed. The works of God in nature have an excellence 
and beauty that does not invest the great ones of the world; 
a lily is more gloriously arrayed than Solomon, But there are 
thoughts in God too great ever to be visibly represented in 
ocean depths and blazing suns. Yet some at least of even 
these thoughts are expressed in human language and received 
into our minds. But the heart desires what it cannot utter in 
words, and “makes,” by the force of imagination, forms of 
goodness and beauty that have a being only “in the land that 
is very far off.” But beyond nature, beyond ideas, beyond 
the ken of imagination and the reach of merely natural desire, 
are the things that God has actually prepared, the completed 
reality of the Gospel. It may, further, be asked if the Apostle 
intends this to be an exhaustive division of the things that are 
not the hidden wisdom of God. If not, why does he mention 
nature, doctrine, and the ideal? These are the outward garb 
of the eternal mystery. It manifests itself, first, by taking its 
place in human history through the fact of the incarnation ; 
second, by a system of Christian truth, a philosophy of the 


56 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Divine revelation in Christ; third, by an ideal of perfection. 
It was necessary that the Divine mystery should manifest 
itself in these human forms, because Christ is primarily a 
power; that is, He is a new element in human history, a new 
force in truths of doctrine, a higher ideal of moral perfection. 
But no external act or object can of itself, apart from the 
spiritual insight of the onlooker, be a revelation of anything 
beyond power, and no manifestation of power can be an 
adequate revelation of God. The supreme act of Divine love, 
that God should send His Son and the Son sacrifice Himself 
for us, can be nothing more to an unspiritual man than a 
manifestation of infinite power, if it can be that. These things 
have an inner life known to those who love God. 

Many writers, from Irenzeus, Clem. Al., Origen, Cyprian, 
Augustine, to Meyer, suppose the Apostle is speaking of the 
future blessings of heaven. Several Rabbis so explain Isa. 
Ixiv. 4, as if it meant that the prophets indeed foretold the 
days of Messiah, but the world to come no eye had seen, 
except God alone. Cf. Wisd. ix. 16, τὰ δὲ ἐν οὐρανοῖς τις 
ἐξιχνίασεν; But to exclude present insight into Divine things 
is to break away from the general purport of the chapter. 

καθὼς γέγραπται. The perf. signifies that it still abides as 
authoritative in Scripture. Origen (Comm. in Matt. xxvii. 9) 
says he never heard of any one that considered this Epistle 
spurious because the writer cites these words from the apocry- 
phal Book of the prophet Elias. Chrys. thinks the words are 
taken from a lost book. They resemble too closely Isa. Ixiv. 4 
to permit a doubt that Jerome (Hp. 57, Ad Pamm.) is right in 
saying that the Apostle had in his mind the prophet’s words, 
to which we must add Isa. Ixv. 16 (17) ; and Clement of Rome 
(Ad Cor. 24) alters the Apostle’s ἀγαπῶσιν to ὑπομενοῦσιν, as 
it is in Isaiah. If, with Delitzsch and Cheyne, we render the 
prophet’s words thus: “ Yea, from of old men have not heard 
nor perceived with the ear, (and) eye hath not seen, a God 
beside thee, who will do gloriously for him that waiteth for 
Him,” then there is no accommodation to an alien purpose in 
the Apostle’s use of the passage. Prophet and Apostle ex- 
press the same truth, though they do not refer to the same 
manifestation of it. 

&... αὐτόν. Osiand., De Wette, etc., think the words 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—II. 9, 10. 57 


are an anacoluthon. If the words were an exact citation, it 
might be so. But as the Apostle inserts the relat. pron., he 
must have intended to place the citation in grammatical con- 
struction. Lachm. and Hofmann make ἡμῖν δὲ ἀπεκάλυψεν 
the apodosis. But in that case the antithesis between eye 
not having seen and God having prepared, both being in the 
protasis, is entirely missed It is preferable, therefore, with 
Erasm., Est., Meyer (later Edd.), Alford, Heinrici, to connect 
the words with what precedes as an objective clause after 
λαλοῦμεν. ‘ We speak the things which,” etc. 

ἐπὶ καρδίαν. .. ἀνέβη. On this Hebraism cf. Acts vii. 28; 
Herm., Past. Mand. LV. i. 3. 

ὅσα ἡτοίμασεν. So A BC, adopted by Lachm., Tisch., 
Westc. and Hort. The word ὅσα (quam pulchra) implies that 
these things are different in kind from what eye has seen, ete. 
The Apostle has altered the prophet’s ἐποίησεν into ἡτοίμασεν, 
which expresses, more than ἐποίησεν, first, that the Gospel is 
the outcome of Divine thought; second, that it is designed 
to supply the spiritual wants of men; third, that it is now 
completed (cf. Matt. xxii. 4, 8). 

τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτόν. Love is the eye that sees, the ear 
that hears, the heart that realizes the things of God (cf. xiii. 
8, 12; Eph. ii. 18). The Apostle has substituted ἀγαπῶσιν 
for ὑπομενοῦσιν ἔλεον, because the revelation of God, which 
the saints of the Old Test. waited for as still to come, has now 
been given. This is another proof that the Apostle is not 
speaking exclusively or mainly of the future glory of heaven. 
That glory we still wait for. 


(2) God’s wisdom is revealed inwardly by the Spirit. 
(ii. 10-13). 

V. 10. ἡμῖν, that is, the τέλειοι. Meyer well observes that 
the word is spoken in a tone of triumph. 

ἀπεκάλυψε. ‘This is scarcely an instance of the aor. being 
used for the perf. Winer (Gr. § XL.) says it is never so used. 
But cf. Goodwin, Greek Moods, etc., p. 25; Buttmann, N.S. 
p- 171; and see Xen., Mem. I. vi. 4; Thuc., I. 73, παρήλθομεν. 
Here, however, it 15. ἃ pure aor. The Apostle is speaking of 
the revelation given to Christians as an event that began a 
new epoch in the world’s history. 


58 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος. NA BC omit αὐτοῦ. But it does not 
change the meaning; for the following verses prove that the 
Spirit of God, not the human spirit, is meant. 

ἐραυνᾷ. SoNABC. It is the Alexandrian spelling of 
ἐρευνῶν Ci. Rom. xi. 83; 1 Pet. 1. 10; Barn. Hp. ive; 
(Hilgenf.). Here the Spirit, in Rom. viii. 27 God, in Rev. ii. 
23 Christ, is said to “search.”? Hence it does not mean 
searching in order to discover, but expresses the activity of 
the Divine knowledge. So Meyer. The LXX. never uses 
ἐρευνᾶν of God’s knowledge, but δοκιμάζειν, which expresses, 
not so much activity as thoroughness of knowledge. Chrys. 
makes it refer to the accuracy, others (as Greg. Naz., Or. xliii. 
65) to the rich fulness, of the Spirit’s knowledge. But all this 
misses the point. The Fathers justly use the word to prove 
the Spirit’s proper Divinity. But the argument is that the 
Spirit is ever active in fathoming the depths of God. 

τὰ βάθη, not “deep things,” but “depths,” mysteria in- 
teriora (Aug.). In Rom. xi. 33 the Apostle joins together 
the ideas of depth and unsearchableness.! 

V. 11. He proves by an analogy that we cannot know the 
things of God without the revelation of the Spirit of God. 
No man knows another’s thoughts; so none can know God’s 
thoughts until He utters them. Does “ Spirit of God” here 
mean more than the self-consciousness of God? Does not the 
force of the Apustle’s argument lie in the analogy between the 
self-consciousness of man, knowing what is in man, and 
the self-consciousness of God as it knows what is in God? 
Yes, say Osiander, Meyer, Kling, after Baur (Neutest. Theol. 
p: 207). But it would be palpably absurd to say that God 
reveals anything to men through His own self-consciousness, 
unless the self-consciousness of God is identical with the Holy 
Spirit. This, again, would involve that the procession of the 
Spirit is prior in idea to God’s self-consciousness, whereas His 
self-consciousness as Deus must be prior, in order of ideas, to 
His self-consciousness as fons deitatis. We must not, there- 
fore, press the analogy. If we admit that the Holy Spirit 
knows the things of God, it is not necessary to the validity 

1 Hilgenfeld (Zeitsch. f. Wiss. Theol. XV. p. 223) does not hesitate to assert 


that there is a sarcastic allusion to the Apostle’s words in Rev. ii. 24; that is, 
the Apostle John calls the Apostle Paul’s God Satan! 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—1II. 10-12. 59 


of the Apostle’s reasoning that He should know them as man 
knows the things of man, by self-consciousness. Both are 
knowledge through introspection, and this is enough. ‘The 
view of Baur is rejected by De Wette and Delitzsch (Dill. 
Psych. IV. § 4). If the Spirit is neither the human spirit nor 
the Divine self-consciousness, a more decisive declaration of 
His personality cannot be. 

τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, man’s entire intellectual and moral 
nature. It includes νοῦς and, as Origen (Comm. in Rom. 
ii. 15) says, conscience also, and is synonymous with Plato’s 
ὁ ἐντὸς ἄνθρωπος (cf. Matt. xxvi. 41; 2 Cor. vii. 1; 1 Pet. 
iv. 6). This use of πνεῦμα is to be carefully distinguished 
from its more special signification of the Divine in man. 

οὐδεὶς ἔγνωκεν. So A BCD, adopted by Lachm., Tisch., 
Westc. and Hort. Οἶδα is to know a fact; éyvwxa, to know 
the inner nature of a thing. The distinction is perhaps 
not to be pressed here (cf. John viii. 55). The perf. means 
cognita hubeo. Ambrose compares Matt. xi. 27; justly. No 
one knows the Father save the Son; no one knows the depths 
of God but the Spirit ; an inconsistency in appearance only. 

To τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ he does not add τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ, because 
the spirit of man is in him as part of him, but the Spirit 
of God is God and the whole of the Divine essence. ‘lhe 
patristic phrase ἐν Θεῷ refers. to the αὐτοθεός or Father, and 
expresses the perichoresis of the Divine persons.. But it may 
be questionable whether the phrase “tres προσώπα in Deo” 
is correct. 

V.12. The Spirit reveals by dwelling within. 

τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ κόσμου. Hofmann explains it of the Spirit of 
God as the principle of life, physical and intellectual, in all 
creatures. But ἐλάβομεν would then be inappropriate, and 
the antithesis that runs through this and the latter part of 
the first chapter between the kingdom of God and the world, 
compels us to understand by κόσμος, not the creation (as 
Theod. Mops.), but the kingdom of evil, the antagonist of 
the revelation of God in Christ. Meyer and Alford think 
the personal “ god of this world” is meant. In favour of this 
is the antithesis that would then emerge between the personal 
Spirit of God and the personal spirit of the world. ‘To 
receive the spirit of the world” would thei mean to be under 


60 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the influence and in the possession of Satan, which is in 
accordance with the general representation of Scripture that 
the world is in the power of the evil one (cf. 1 John v. 19). 
The objection to this interpretation is that St. Paul does not 
elsewhere use the word πνεῦμα as a personal appellation in 
the sense of an evil spirit. The verse that bears closest 
resemblance to the present passage is Eph. ii. 2, where the 
construction of the genit. πνεύματος is doubtful, but on the 
whole it had better be taken in apposition to ἐξουσίας. The 
world is the empire of Satan, and that empire stands together 
by means of the spirit or principle of evil. Similarly here the 
spirit of the world will be the principle of evil that binds 
together the kingdom of darkness and makes it, not a chaos, 
but a κόσμος, an organization contrived to subvert the 
kingdom of Christ. It is not necessary to the Apostle’s 
purpose that this spirit should be a person, provided it is the 
central unifying principle. Now sucha spirit as this would 
effectually incapacitate a Christian to comprehend the things 
of God. The minds of those that believe not are blinded. 
The aor. ἐλάβομεν refers to the time of regeneration, when the 
believer received the Spirit of adoption (cf. Rom. vi. 15). 
The revelation of God can be given only through God. “ God, 
who is the object of knowledge and love, must be Himself 
the principle of knowledge and love” (Martensen, Chrisél. 
Dogm. § 58). Cf. Aug., Conf. XIII. xxxi. 45: “ Quidquid in 
Spiritu Dei vident quia bonum est, non ipsi, sed Deus videt 
quia bonum est.” 

ἐκ. Inasmuch as every revelation of God can be received 
only through God, there must be an actual going forth of the 
Spirit of God to dwell in man. Hence, though é« does not 
here express the truth of the Spirit’s procession (as Theod. 
explains), yet it implies it. The Constantinopolitan Creed 
changed the παρά of John xv. 26 into ἐκ, perhaps from a 
reminiscence of the present passage, the framers of the Creel 
apparently! translating from Tertullian. The purpose of the 
words in this place is to show that what imparts certainty 
and depth to the mature believer’s knowledge of the things 
of God is the identity of that which bestows and that which 
apprehends the revelation. God within teaches the man’s 

1 Cf. Swete, History of the Doctrine of the Procession of the Spirit, p. 76. 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—II. 12, 13. 61 


spirit to understand the revelation of God above; God in us 
reveals God in our nature. 

τὰ χαρισθέντα. The aor. is not (as probably in Phil. i. 29) 
to be taken in the sense of the perf., but refers to the gift 
once for all made to man in the facts of Christ’s death and 
resurrection, the contents of the mystery. The argument 
still advances. For if the thoughts of God must be revealed 
in order to be known, much more are the free actions of God’s 
heart. Human love never forecast what Divine love would 
do. God’s self-sacrifice.was a conception not understood even 
by God’s peculiar people, though taught for ages by priest 
and prophet. 

V. 18. We teach them also through the same inward 
illumination of the Spirit. 

οὐκ ἐν διδακτοῖς. . . Πνεύματος. NABCD omit ἁγίου. So 
Lachm., Tisch., Westc. and Hort, Rev. Vers. It is better 
away. “Taught by Spirit”— by a supernatural indwelling 
light. Hofmann connects these two clauses with κρίνοντες. 
But λόγοις suggests that they should be connected with 
λαλοῦμεν. The Apostle has already said that he spoke the 
things of God; he now adds in what words he spoke them. 
Addw is preferred to λέγω, because they are the utterances 
of the Spirit (cf. xiv. 2). 

σοφίας and πνεύματος are genit., as Hrasmus saw, not after 
λόγοις, but after διδακτοῖς, as in John vi. 45. Mvdaxrds is 
espec. apt to take the genit. (cf. Soph., Hl. 844). But other 
words not derived from verbs that govern the genit. have the 
same construction. Cf. γεγυμνασμένην πλεονεξίας (2 Pet. ii. 
14); εὐλογημένοι τοῦ πατρός (Matt. xxv. 34). It is rare in 
class. prose. Of. Porson on Hur. Or. 491, πληγεὶς θυγατρός. 
This verse makes no reference to the Apostles’ special in- 
Spiration as writers of the New Test. (Hodye, etc.). Cf. 1 
Thess. iv. 9, The Apostle rests, not indeed his authority, 
but his ability, to teach on the fact that the Spirit of God 
enlightened him, as he enlightens other mature Christians. 


1 Cf. Harless on Eph. ii. 22, p. 267: “" Τὸ πνεῦμα ohne Artikel als inwohnend 
einem menschlichen Subjecte gedacht wird. Vgl. Rom. viii. 5, of δὲ κατὰ πνεῦμα 
(ὄντες) τὰ τοῦ πνεύματος (φρονοῦσιν), im ersten Satzglied ist πνεῦμα inneres 
normgebendes Princip, im zweiten ist τοῦ πνεύματος der objectiv wirkliche, 
heilige Geist.” 


62 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


πνευματικοῖς πνευματικὰ συγκρίνοντες. The various inter- 
pretations offered of these words differ according to the 
meaning assigned to συγκρίνω and the gender of πνευματικοῖς. 
(1) Calvin, Beza, Cor. a Lap., De Wette, Meyer, etc., render 
συγκρ. by accommodantes, aptantes, and consider my. neuter: 
“adapting spiritual words to spiritual things,” and not language 
incongruous, as we should be doing if we spoke the things 
of God in words taught by human wisdom. But the Apostle 
has said this already in effect; and according to this view 
there is a play on the word “ spiritual,’ which is not in the 
Apostle’s manner ; for ‘‘ spiritual words ” can only mean words 
taught by the Spirit (cf. Eph. v. 19), but “ spiritual things” 
must mean things that reveal God. (2) Hstius, Olshausen 
(doubtingly), render συγκρ. by “adapting,” but consider wy. 
to be masc.: “adapting spiritual things to spiritual men.” 
But this is the direct opposite of what the Apostle declares), 
that spiritual men understand spiritual things, so that n 
adaptation of them to their capacity is needed. (3) Bengel, 
Rickert, Stanley, Alford (latest Edd.), Hofmann, Heinrici 
render συγκρ. by interpretantes and consider mv. to be masc.: 
“‘interpreting spiritual things to spiritual men.” But it is 
only in reference to dreams and visions that ovyxpivw means 
“to interpret,” and that, with few exceptions, in LXX. In 
no passage are the things of God represented as dreams to be 
interpreted or allegories of which the Apostles have the key. 
(4) Neander’s rendering: “interpreting spiritual things by 
spiritual words,” is open to the same objection. Similar to 
this is Grotius’s rendering, but he restricts the reference to 
the interpretation of Old Test. prophecies, which would be 
foreign to the Apostle’s purpose. (5) Theod. Mops., Chrys., 
Theod. thus: “ proving the truth of spiritual things (whether 
Old Test. types, as Chrys. says, or the teaching of the Spirit, 
as Theod. Mops. says) by the demonstration of the Spirit.” 
But συγκρ. does not elsewhere signify “to prove.” (6) The 
rendering of the Auth. Vers., “comparing spiritual things 
with spiritual,” is satisfactory. Christianity is a Divine 
wisdom. But this means, from the side of teacher and of 
learner, that revealed truths are combined so as to form a 
consistent and well-proportioned system of truths in their 
correlation. The higher Christian training resembles Plato’s 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—II. 18, 14. 63 


criterion of dialectical power, the faculty to see the relation 
of the sciences to one another and to true being (cf. Rep. VII. 
p. 547). With συγκρίνοντες compare Plato's συνοπτικός. The 
words are a clear statement of the necessity for an objective 
teaching, aud its spirit is opposed to the theory of the Clemen- 
tine Homilies (xii. 6) that men require only an inward revela- 
tion. It is this objectiveness of the revelation that saves the 
Apostle’s conception of the province of the spiritual man from 
the Gnostic intellectualism, which deprived Christianity of its 
foundation in historical fact and reduced it to a philosophical 
speculation. 


(3) God’s Wisdom is Understood Only by the Spiritual 
Man. 
(ii, 14—iii. 4). 

V.14. ψυχικός. Two questions claim our attention. 

First, Does ψυχικός denote the unregenerate man or the 
weak Christian? Chrys. explains it, ὁ κατὰ σάρκα ζῶν καὶ 
μήπω τὸν νοῦν φωτισθεὶς διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος, ἀλλὰ μόνην THY 
ἔμφυτον καὶ ἀνθρωπίνην σύνεσιν ἔχων, ἣν ταῖς ἁπάντων ψυχαῖς 
ἐμβάλλει ὁ δημιουργός. Chrysostom’s definition is interest- 
ing as the source of Luther’s rendering, from which Tyndale 
borrowed the phrase now current in English theology, ‘the 
natural man.” The Lutherans, in the Augsburg Confession, 
and the Calvinists, in the Second Helvetic Confession, cite 
the verse as their locus classicus in their polemics against the 
Pelagianism of the Church of Rome, to prove the impotence of 
the unregenerate man to attain holiness. On the other hand 
- Catholic expositors, Aquinas, Cor. a Lap., Hstius, and the 
Rheims translators (“sensual”), follow Augustine, who says 
(Serm. Ixxi.): ‘Hos in ecclesié constitutos parvulos  dicit 
[Apostolus] nondum spirituales, sed adhue carnales. . . . 
Quomodo essent parvuli in Christo nisi renati ex Spiritu 
Sancto?” Similarly Bernard, De Vita Solitaria. This view 
is defended by Usteri (Hntw. d. Paul. Lehrb. p. 294, 5th Hd.). 
As the πνευματικὸς is opposed to σαρκικός and νηπίος in iii. 1, 
it is at least evident that the spiritual man is also the τέλειος. 
To avoid the inference that the ψυχιεκός is the weak Christian, 
the Lutheran Calixtus and recently Εἰ, C. Baur maintained 


64 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


that σαρκικός as well as ψυχικός is a designation for the unre- 
generate man, which is plainly contrary to iii. 1. But the 
strong expressions, “ the natural man rejects the things of the 
Spirit,” and “they are foolishness unto him,” are hard to 
reconcile with the supposition that the natural man is the weak 
Christian, of whom indeed the Apostle has not hitherto spoken. 
On the other hand, the contrast between the impotence of the 
merely human faculties to understand the things of God, and 
the certain knowledge possessed by all who have been endowed 
with the Divine Spirit 1s in the channel of the Apostle’s argu- 
ment. Moreover we have the same distinction in James iii. 15, 
where the wisdom that is not from above is said to be ἐπίγειος, 
ψυχικὴ, Saywovi@dyns—eriyecos in its sphere of action, ψυχεκὴ 
in the mental and moral condition of the persons it addresses, 
and δαιμονιώδης in its origin and principle. So also in Jude 
19 the ψυχικοί are said to be πνεῦμα μὴ ἔχοντες, that is, they 
have not the Spirit of God. For these reasons we must accept 
the view that by ψυχικός the unregenerate man is meant. 
Second, Why is the unregenerate man called ψυχικός ἢ Τῇ 
we admit that the word πνεῦμα contains a reference to man’s 
relation to God, the difficult question whether the Apostle held 
that human nature consists of three distinct substances, body, 
soul and spirit, need not be discussed. Whether the πνεῦμα 
is a distinct substance in man, or a distinct faculty of his soul, 
or a distinct principle of action, it is, at all events, a power 
derived immediately from God and directed towards God. It 
denotes the Divine in man, which the Apostle represents as the 
result of the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. Suggested by the 
first declaration concerning man’s creation, that he became 
a living soul by the “breath ”’ of God, the conception of the 
spirit in man as the product of the Spirit of God is distinctly 
stated by Christ and St. Paul. “To be born of the Spirit” 
(John iii. 6) is to be born from above; and “the quickening 
Spirit ” (1 Cor. xv. 45, 47) is the second Man from heaven. 
The use of πνεῦμα to designate the Divine Person, who dwells 
in the believer, is a still more emphatic reason for its applica- 
tion to the kindred God-directed nature which is the result 
of the Spirit’s indwelling. But this supernatural element (to 
use an indefinite expression) at once creates a contrast between 
itself and the natural. Now ψυχή, in the Old Test. language, 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—II. 14. 65 


denotes the whole of human nature and nothing more: “ Man 
became a living soul.” Whether we accept or reject Beck’s 
notion (Umriss, etc., I. ὃ 5) that body and spirit are the two 
constituents of soul or man, we must admit that Scripture 
represents man as being, in the totality of his nature, soul. 
Hence Wuyexds will adequately distinguish all that pertains to 
mere humanity from the Divine nature bestowed or restored 
by the Spirit of God. While πνεῦμα must not be identified 
with the νοῦς of Plato and Philo, the διανοητικόν of Aristotle, 
ψυχή, on the other hand, must not be limited to mere ἐπιθυμία 
and θυμός, which is apparently intended by Chrys. when he 
introduces into his definition of ψυχικός the words ὁ κατὰ 
σάρκα ζῶν. The word ψυχικός was coined by Aristotle (Eth. 
Nic. III. x. 2), to distinguish the pleasures of the soul, such 
as ambition and desire of knowledge, from those of the body. 
In this he is followed by Polybius (VI. v. 7) and Plutarch (De 
Place. Phil. 1. 9). The ψυχικός was, therefore, the man who 
was governed by the higher motives of mind. Neither does 
the Apostle lower the meaning of the word. It does not mean 
“‘intellectum et affectum depressos ad sensibilia ”’? (De Lyra).} 
Contrasted with the ἀκρατής, the ψυχικός is the noblest of 
men. But to the πνευματικός he is related as the natural to 
the supernatural. 

ov δέχεται, “ rejects”’ (cf. Heb. xi. 35). It is a litotes like 
οὐχ ὑπισχνοῦμαι, “1 refuse.” The words imply that the 
things of God are offered to all, even the natural, unregenerate 
man. For δέχομαι in the meaning of “accept” cf. 1 Thess, 
i. 6 et al. 

τὼ τοῦ Πνεύματος, genit. of possession. The Spirit is not 
a mere instrument of revelation, but the native home. of the: 
truth. But τοῦ Θεοῦ also is genit. of possession. The Spirit 
is not the ultimate source of truth, inasmuch as the Spirit 
himself is God’s. 

καὶ οὐ δύναται γνῶναι, not equivalent to οὐ γὰρ δύναται καὶ 
γνῶναι, as if the Apostle meant to prove that the natural man. 
does not accept, because he cannot even know, the things of 
God (Scaliger). To know is not a lesser, but a greater thing 
than to accept them. The weakest believer accepts; the 

1 Reuss also (Epitres Paulin. I. p. 61) restricts ψυχή to. the lower faculties of 
instinct, affections, vitality. 

F 


66 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


mature Christian alone has a spiritual apprehension of their 
meaning. The clause expresses, not the reason for, but the 
consequence of rejecting the things of God. Faith precedes 
knowledge. “Crede ut intelligas.” 

πνευματικῶς, after the manner of a πνευματικός, by the in- 
sight into the things of the Spirit that results from the Spirit’s 
indwelling. The word is borrowed from the allegorical system 
of interpretation that prevailed among the Jews of Alexandria, 
who distinguished between the yuysxoi and the πνευματικοί, 
between those that understood the grammatical meaning of 
Scripture and those that pierced to the spiritual meaning 
beneath. But the Apostle applies the term, not to the tropical 
and symbolical (δι᾿ ὑπονοιῶν) interpretation of types and pro- 
phecies, but to the judgment of the man who has the mind of 
Christ. 

avaxpiverat, “ well sifted,” “thoroughly examined.” Ava- 
denotes the resolution of a complex whole. But ἀνακρίνω 
expresses also, what is not contained in ἀναλύω, a judgment 
passed upon the truths analysed, an estimate of their compara- 


tive value, which leads up to a synthesis (συγκρίνειν) or an - 


estimate of their mutual relation when combined in a system 
of Christian truth. 

V.15.. πνευματικός, the man whose entire moral and intel- 
lectual nature has been transformed and made spiritual. The 
Pauline use of the word implies two distinct but inseparable 
facts. The one is the indwelling of the Spirit, the other is the 
Spirit’s transforming energy. In relation to the former the 7». 
is opposite of the ψυχικός, as the supernatural is of the natural ; 
in reference to the latter the mv. is opposite of the σαρκικός, 
as the holy is of the sinful. For the holy is supernatural, and 
the one supernatural purpose of the wisdom which God fore- 
ordained and of the things which God has prepared. The 
indwelling Spirit is the Holy Spirit; and he in whom that 
Spirit dwells is at once supernatural and holy, The Apostle 
cannot speak to the Corinthians as unto spiritual (ii. 1). 


Though they were no longer ψυχίικοί, they were still capxuxol. 


The supernatural element had entered, but not yet done its 
work of leavening the whole lump (cf. Gal. vi. 1; Barn., Ep. 
ay, Ad, γενώμεθα πνευματικοί, γενώμεθα ναὸς Pr eaee τῷ Θεῷ): 


“μέν is omitted in ACD. So Lachm., Tisch. But De 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—II. 14-16. 67 


Wette, Westc. and Hort., etc., retain it. If it is omitted, the 
antithesis between the clauses is changed into a relation of 
cause and effect. It is because the spiritual man judges all 
things that he himself cannot be judged. 

πάντα or,as in ACD, τὰ πάντα. Its range is not to be 
limited to the things of the Spirit. For, though the unholy 
cannot understand goodness, the good can probe the depths 
of sin. Cf. 1 John ii. 20; Plat., Rep., p. 409: πονηρία μὲν 
yap ἀρετήν τε καὶ αὑτὴν οὔποτ’ ἂν γνοίη, ἀρετὴ δὲ φύσεως 
παιδευομένης χρόνῳ ἅμα αὑτῆς τε καὶ πονηρίας ἐπιστήμην 
λήψεται. é 

vm’ ovdévos. The judgment of the spiritual man is at once 
the widest and the highest. All things are subject to it, from 
it there is no appeal. It is unhesitating, authoritative, ab- 
solute, final. The Apostle answers the question, What is the 
ultimate authority in matters that admit of being spiritually 
judged? His answer may be compared with that of Aristotle, 
who, as Sir A. Grant observes with truth, “escapes being 
forced into an utterly relative system of morals” by making 
the σπουδαῖος the κανὼν καὶ μέτρον. But in escaping from 
a relative morality Aristotle falls into a vicious circle. For 
he has no standard by which to judge the σπουδαῖος himself 
except the moral conceptions of which the σπουδαῖος has been 
constituted judge. St. Paul, while he boldly ascribes to the 
spiritual man an absolute and final judgment, introduces the 
new Christian conception of the indwelling Spirit. The mind 
of the spiritual man is identical with the mind of Christ, whose 
judgement must be final. In the πνευματικός the two concep- 
tions of the σπουδαῖος and of the universal reason meet. The 
moral rises into spiritual; the universal reason yields to the 
Spirit of God; τὰ καλὰ καὶ ἡδέα pass into “ the things of the 
Spirit.” 

V. 16, Proof of the statement that the spiritual man can 
pass an authoritative judgment on all things. He has the 
mind of Christ, who has the mind of God. 

tis; From Isa. xl. 13. Hence αὐτόν must refer to Κυρίου, 
and Κύριος must mean God, not Christ. 

ἔγνω, ‘came to know,” that is, at the time when God 
created all things. Vitringa, Delitzsch, Cheyne render the 
Heb. by “ directed,” “‘ gave the measure to.” The ἔγνω of 


68 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ΤΙ ΧΧ. may be a paraphrastic rendering of the Heb. Anyhow 
it does not affect the Apostle’s purpose (cf. Judith viii. 14). 
συμβιβάσει, “ will instruct.” This is not a class. meaning 
of the causal of συμβαίνω. But προσβιβάζω is so used in 
Attic. Hesych., συμβιβασθέντες" διδαχθέντες, διαλεχθέντες. 
γοῦν. The Heb. means ‘‘the Spirit of Jehovah.” The 
Apostle might have written πνεῦμα, though it would not 
leave the meaning, as Vitringa and Neander say, unchanged. 
“Tsaiah hypostatises the Spirit”? (Cheyne). Similarly in 
Wisd. i. 7. But the Apostle regards this Spirit as an 
indwelling mind, which judges all things but is not itself 
regulated by any extraneous power. “The Spirit of Christ ” 
was in the prophets (1 Pet. 1. 11), but not as νόῦς. The 
inspiration that enabled them to foretell the sufferings of 
Christ and the glory that should follow is distinguished from 
their diligent search into the meaning of their own utterances. 
The exercise of the gift of tongues also, in the Apostolic 
age, involved the activity of the πνεῦμα and the inaction of 
the νοῦς (cf. xiv. 14). On the other hand the search of the 
spiritual man into the things of God is here represented as 
the combined act of the sanctified reason of the man himself 
and the powerful illumination of the indwelling Spirit. Hence 
vods denotes, not the Spirit of God or of Christ, but the mind, 
the intellect of God and of Christ. This highest form of 
intellect has for its object the highest form of truth, the 
mystery now revealed by God, the things which eye hath not 
seen nor ear heard nor heart conceived. But νοῦς denotes 
more than intellect. It is the moral reason! With it the 
Apostle served the law of God (cf. Rom. vii. 25). By its 
renewal the believer comes to know (by testing) the will of 
God (Rom. xii. 2). In the πνευματικός its possession is the 
result of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It is a ψυχῆς. 
θεῖον ὄμμα ina sense higher than Aristotle thought of when 
he so defined νοῦς. The Apostle ascribes to the spiritual man, 


not the thoughts of Christ (Erasm., Grot., and many others), 


but the moral judgment which Christ Himself had in virtue 
of the indwelling Spirit which had been given Him without 


1 Cf. Beck, Umriss ἃ. Bibl. Seelenlehre, p. 49; Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol., IV. 
§5; Cremer, Lew. s.v. νοῦς ; Kling, Stud. τ. Krit., 1839, pp. 431, sqq. ; Acker- 
mann, ib., pp. 896, sqq. ; Kluge, Jahrb. ἃ. Deutsch. Theol., 1871, p. 325. 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—II. 16-111. 1. 69 


measute. ‘“ Recipimus in nobis sapientiam Christi ad judi- 
candum ” (Aquinas in loc). 

The Apostle’s reasoning rests on an unexpressed assumption, 
that Christ has the mind of God,—the assumption, im fact, 
which Arius denied in asserting that the Son could not in- 
vestigate (ἐξεχνεάσαι) the Father’s nature. God’s judgment 
is absolutely true and final; Christ has the Divine comprehen- 
sion; we, again, have the moral judgment of Christ; therefore, 
the spiritual man judges all things, and from his judgment 
there can be no appeal. The Apostle seems intentionally to 
depart from the language of Wisd. ix. 13, tis yap ἄνθρωπος 
γνώσεται βουλὴν Θεοῦ; ἢ τίς ἐνθυμηθήσεται τί θέλει ὁ Κύριος. 
The counsel aud will of God may be revealed in Scripture, but 
in vain, unless we have the moral judgment to understand it. 
Hence also νοῦς is anarthrous, expressing the general notion 
of mind and will combined (cf. Jelf, Gr. § 461.7). The 
passage, finally, does not explicitly identify Christ with es 
as x. 22 and Rom. x. 19 certainly do. 

Ch. III. 1-4. The Apostle applies the truth that only the} 
spiritual man understands the Gospel as a Divine wisdom) 
to the relation between himself and the Corinthian Church. 
This paragraph correspords to ul. 1-5. There he declares 
that he preached the Gospel to them as a Divine power; here 
he explains why he could not unfold to them its Divine 
wisdom. He begins both paragraphs with καὶ ἐγώ, to mark | 
the transition from a general statement to a particular applica- | 


tion. He might have begun now with ἀλλ᾽ ὑμῖν. But it | 


would have been harsh. With his usual unerring delicacy, he 
makes ὑμῖν ἩΡΒΘΒΆΡΠΑΙΙσ: 

V. 1. οὐκ ἠδυνήθην, that is, during his stay at Corinth and, 
perhaps, in a former letter. Riickert and Olshaus. infer that ; 
the Apostle had been in Corinth twice, though only one visit. 
is mentioned in Acts, because it would have been unreasonable | 


to expect the Corinthians to be other than νήπιοι when the | 


Gospel was first preached among them. But as the Apostle’s © 


: 


stay extended over eighteen months, the inference is ground- . 


less (cf. Introd.). he words imply that the Apostle en- 
deavoured to speak unto them as spiritual men, but failed 
(cf. Mark vi. 5). Accordingly Clement of Rome (Ad. Cor. 47), 
says that the Apostle had written to them ἐπ᾽ ἀληθείας 


Ἀ 


CAA 


ot 
me. 


> 


a) 


ὶ 


Ν 
γι 


70 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


πνευματικῶς, though the Apostle says here that he is still 
unable to do so. 

σαρκίνοις. SoNABCD. It is, therefore, rightly adopted 

by Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., Meyer, Alford, Westc. and Hort; 

notwithstanding the arguments of Reiche, who with De Wette, 

Fritzsche (on Rom. vii. 14), Winer (Gr. ὃ XVI.), retain cap- 

κικοῖς. Proparoxytone adjectives in -svos denote the material 

of which a thing is made (cf. 2 Cor. iii. 8). ἀνθρώπινος is 

an exception, though Epictetus makes a distinction between 

it and ἀνθρωπικός. Σάρκινος, therefore, means “ fleshy ;” 

σαρκικός, “ fleshly.” But σάρξ, in its Pauline signification, is 

not the physical flesh ; it has an ethical meaning quite as much 

‘as πνεῦμα. It denotes the quality of being merely human, 
the human being also sinful, as distinguished from being 

supernatural or spiritual. The Apostle requires an adjective 

‘to express this ethical meaning. He may either adopt σάρ- 
xivos, which was already used by Aristotle, who is followed by 

Plutarch, in the sense of “ fleshy,” and give it the new mean- 

ing of “ fleshly,” that is “carnal;” or he may coin a new 

word, σαρκικός, after the pattern of ψυχικός and πνευματικός. 

Both things seem to have been done. But the attempt to 

attach to σάρκινος an ethical meaning was not successful, and 

in ecclesiastical writers is abandoned.? But we may still ask if 

σάρκινος and σαρκικός express precisely the same ethical con- 

ception. Archbishop ‘I'rench (Syn. p. 262) and Kling main- 

| tain that the charge of being σάρκινοι is far less grave than 
\that of being σαρκικοί, the former implying only that the 
‘Corinthian Christians were tarrying at the threshold of faith, 
‘the latter denoting active opposition to the Spirit of God. 


1 The virtually Apollinarian view strenuously advocated of recent years by 
Baur, Holsten, Pfleiderer, Sabatier, that σάρξ in St. Paul’s teaching means the 
material body or at least the sensuous element in man, I reject on the follow- 
ing grounds: 1. Basar, the Hebrew equivalent of σάρξ, has sometimes the 
extended signification of human in contrast to Divine. 2. The Apostle reckons 
sins of the mind among deeds of the flesh (cf. Gal. v. 19-25; Col. ii. 18). 3. If 
capkwos means “a person that has material flesh for his substance” (Pfleiderer, 
Paulin. Ὁ. 56), how can any man in the present life become xvevparuds? 
4. And how would St. Paul be consistent in maintaining the sinlessness of 
Christ? Pfleiderer admits this inconsistency. A useful summary and criticism 
of views will be found in Prof. Dickson’s Buird Lecture for 1883. 

2 Even when they cite the present passage, they sometimes write cdpxwos, 
sometimes σαρκικός. . 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—III. 1, 2. 71 


The word ἔτι (ver. 3) shows this to be incorrect. Alford and 
Poor’s view that ὡς σαρκίνοις means “as if ye were men of 
flesh” is untenable; for in Rom. vii. 14, ἐγὼ δὲ σάρκινός εἰμι 
(the better attested reading), ὡς is omitted. Delitazsch and 
Hofmann consider σάρκινος to mean the man who has still a 
sinful tendency, σαρκικός the man whose fundamental charac- 
ter is this sinful impulse. If so, the regenerate man is not 
σαρκικός (cf. ver. 3). On the whole it is safe to infer that at 
first both forms were used interchangeably, but that σαρκικός 
was afterwards alone retained to express the idea of “ fleshly,” 
in opposition to πνευματικός. Similarly Bleek on Heb. vii. 
16. But we must not with Baur (Newt. Theol.) regard them as 
synonymous with Ψψυχυκός. Man regarded as not supernatural 
is Ψυχικός, man regarded as sinful is σάρκινος or σαρκικός 
(cf. Gal. v. 17). Adam in his sinless state was ψυχικός. 
Christ was neither ψυχικός nor σαρκικός. The unregenerate | 
man is ψυχικός and σαρκικός. The believer is not wuysKos, | 
but for a time continues to be σαρκικός. ‘These two words, | 
therefore, express the antitheses to the two meanings of 
πνευματικός in chap. ii. The temptation to apply the term 
Ψυχικός to the regenerate man may have arisen from the 
mistaken notion that σαρκικός refers only to the bodily appe- 
tites. It is so applied by Aquinas and De Lyra, and for this 
reason. Bui cf. Col. ii. 18; Rom. viii. 6; Gal. v. 20.} 

νηπίοις (νη-, ἔπος, in-fans), the farthest remove from the 
τέλειος (cf. Heb. v.13). The Apostle is partial to the meta- 
phor. Heuses it here to soften the effect which the epithet 
“carnal”? might have produced. Cf. παιδία, 1 John ii. 13, 
where allusion is made to their childishness and to the 
Apostle’s fatherly love. 

ἐν Χριστῷ, not “in Christian things” (De Wette), but “ in 
union with Christ” (cf. John xv. 1-7. Cf. De Wette on 
Col. i. 28).. 

V. 2. γάλα, nourishment for babes. The opp. is βρῶμα 
or στερεὰ τροφή (Heb. v. 12). Cf. Philo, De Agric. p. 188, 
ἐπεὶ δὲ νηπίοις μέν ἐστι γάλα τροφή, τελείοις δὲ τὰ ἐκ πυρῶν 
πέμματα, καὶ ψυχῆς γαλακτώδεις μὲν ἂν εἴεν τροφαὶ κατὰ τὴν 
παιδικὴν ἡλικίαν τὰ τῆς ἐγκυκλίου μουσικῆς προπαιδεύματα. 


ΤΑ ΤΩ Eph. ii. 8 σάρξ has a more limited signification than in the Epistle to 
the Romans. : 


τ-----. 


| 


72 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Cf. Clem. Al., Peed. I. p. 118 Potter. From this the Fathers 
coined the word γαλακτοτροφέω. 

ἐπότισα, to be connected with βρῶμα by an easy zeugma. 
Greek has no specific word to express “ giving solid food ;” 
τρέφω is generic (cf. Luke xxiii. 29). In ix. 7 ἐσθίειν is 
used for πίνειν. 

ἠδύνασθε, “were strong.” So Cranmer’s Bible rightly. 
An infin. is not to be supplied. This use of δύναμαι is not 
mentioned in Lidd. and Scott. Cf. Thuc. ii. 29, δυνάμενον 
μέγα: Eur., Io 565, ἡμεῖς δ᾽ οὐδὲν av δυναίμεθα.ἉὨ The more 
frequent phrase is δυνατὸς εἰμί, as in Xen., Mem. II. i. 19. 
The Corinthians were ἀσθενεῖς (cf. ix. 22). 

V. 3. Proof of the assertion that they were carnal. 

ὅπου, “ whereas,” like quando. This class. use of ὅπου 
occurs only here in the New Test. 

ζῆλος (from Sw), “rivalry.” In class. Greek the word has 
for the most part a good meaning (cf. Arist., Rhet. τ. 11). 
So occasionally in LXX. and the New Test. But its usual 
meaning in the New Test. is the rivalry that is degenerating 
ito envy, φθόνος (cf. Plat., Menew. p. 242, ἀπὸ ζήλου δὲ 
φθόνος). From φθόνος, again, comes ἔρις, ‘strife in words,” 
which, in turn, produces διχοστασέαι, “strife in act,” ‘ divi- 
sions.” In Gal. v. 20 αἵρεσις is added to διχοστασίαι to 


‘denote a more chronic state of division. In our verse διχοστα- 
σίαι ἰδ omitted ἴῃ δὲ ABC Vulg. De Wette suggests that it 


crept in from Gal. v. 20. 

kata ἄνθρωπον, opp. of κατὰ πνεῦμα. So is κατὰ σάρκα 
in Rom. vii. 5. But it does not follow that σαρκικοί ἐστε is 
precisely synonymous with κατὰ ἄνθρωπον περιπατεῖτε. The 
former refers to sinful disposition, the latter to a merely 
human, unspiritual judgment. 

περυπατεῖν includes φρονεῖν and more. Their whole life did 
not rise above the human sphere. The use of περιπ. for ζῆν 
isa Hebraism. But a similar use of 6605 is not unknown in 
class. Greek (cf. ὀρθοποδοῦσι, Gal. ii. 14). 

V. 4, Olshansen and Neander are probably right in think- 
ing that Apollos alone is named because he was an intimate 
friend of the Apostle, who thus shows his impartiality. 

ἕτερος, one that belongs to the opposite party. On the 
misplacement of μέν cf. note on i, 12. 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—IlI. 2-5. 72 


οὐκ ἄνθρωποι ἐστε; soN ABCD Vulg.; adopted by 
Lachm., Tisch., Weste. and Hort. But Reiche defends 
σαρκικοί. He does not satisfactorily account for the insertion 
by a copyist of the strange expression ἄνθρωποι. It is an 
explanation of σαρκικός and means that the Corinthians had 
not yet risen to the level of the supernatural element that 
dwelt within them. Though they were not ψυχικοί, they 
played the part of the ψυχικός. 


D. Tuirp ArcuMENT AGAINST THE Factions, 
(iii. 5-20). 

The Apostle has spoken of Christianity as a redemptive 
scheme and as a Divine wisdom. Regarded from still another 
side, Christianity is a work which God accomplishes in the 
course of the world’s history. Since God is the worker, | 
factions and boasting in men are excluded. The central | 
thought of the section is ver. 9. The argument may be 580- 
divided thus: Factions are un-Christian, jist, because Apostles 
and teachers are, not leaders of men, but servants of God 
(vv. 5-9) ; second, because what they teach must be in cha- 
racter with the Divine foundation and general plan of the 
building (vv. 10-15) ; third, because the worldly-wise teaching 
of party-leaders destroys God’s temple and incurs His dis- 
pleasure (vv. 16-20). 


(1) Apostles and teachers are, not leaders of men, but servants 


of God. 

(iii. 5-9). 
V.5. As ἀλλ᾽ ἢ must be omitted with ABCD Vulg,, | 
διάκονοι . . . ἔδωκεν will be the answer to the questions, 


τί οὖν ἐστιν Ἀπολλώς ; τί δέ ἐστι Παῦλος; 

διάκονοι (from διακ-, which appears also in διώκω, διάκτωρ, 
and the Germ. jagen), “servants ;” properly “ agents,’ who 
act for a principal and cannot, for that reason, be themselves 
heads, without breach of trust (cf. Plat., Rep. p. 370 sqq.). 
The Apostle does not, therefore, describe the teachers as 
servants of the Church (Chrys. ; cf. 2 Cor. vi. 4; Col. i. 7, 28). 
Similarly δοῦλος, Rom. i. 1; ὑπηρέτης, 1 Cor.iv.1; λειτουργός, 
Rom. xy. 16. 


—— 


74 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ἐπιστεύσατε, the Pauline expression for becoming a Christ- 
ian (cf. Rom. xiii. 11; 1 Cor. xv. 2; Gal. ii. 16, εἰς: Xpioror). 

ἑκάστῳ ὡς, ἃ not uncommon trajection for ὡς ἑκάστῳ, as 
in vii. 17; and not intended to emphasize ἑκάστῳ (ef. 
Raphel’s note on Rom. xii. 8). Kad, “and that,’ “that is 
to say”’ (cf. ix. 5; Mark xvi. 7). 
| ἔδωκεν, not “ gave converts,” but “ gave to each his own 

) special work.” This is proved by ἐφύτευσα, ἐπότισεν, ver, 6. 

ὁ Κύριος, that is Christ. So Theophyl. Of. Eph. iv. 7. 
| Chrys., Meyer, De Wette, etc., understand it to mean God, 
as in Rom. xi. 3. The gift is Christ’s, the Head of the 

| Church; the dispensing of the gift is the work of God’s Spirit. 

V. 6. The outward acts of planting and watering were done 
by men, but the life within and growth were from God. It 
is in the spiritual as in the natural world. Men can only 
bring the seed into contact with the soil. The life that makes 
it grow is not only beyond human power to produce, but also 
beyond human skill to understand or detect. In nature and 
in the Church life is the direct creation of God. 

ἐφύτευσα. Cf. ix. 2; Acts xviii. 1-8. 

ἐπότισε. Cf. Acts xviii. 27. It is better to leave these 
verbs without an expressed accus. He means the Church. 
We need not suppose, with Ambrosiaster, an allusion to 
baptism. 

ηὔξανεν. The imperf. means that when Paul planted and 
when afterwards Apollos watered, God was simultaneously 
giving the increase. 

ΝΥ. 7. ὥστε, “so then,” itague. The indic. is used with 
ὥστε when the result is more emphatic than its connection 
with the antecedent (cf. Jelf, Gr. § 863). Soin vii. 98; Matt. 
xii. 12. 

With ὁ Θεός supply ἐστι πᾶν or Ta πάντα, as in vii. 19, 
‘not 7. The first inference from the statement that God gave 

' the increase is that he that plants or waters is nothing. 

V. 8. The second inference from ver. 6 is that he that plants 


and he that waters are one; there is in their several works 


a unity of idea and purpose. This unity is in the mind of 
God. The third inference is that, while there is ᾧ unity of 
_ plan in the work of all the servants, there is also an individ 
uality of service and a distinct responsibility to God. These 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—1rII. 5-9. 75 


are inferences from the presence and activity of God in the 
historical development of Christianity. Because the life and 
growth of the Church is from God, the servants are nothing 
in themselves; all the servants help, nevertheless, to bring 
to pass the one purpose that runs through the ages; every 
servant will, therefore, receive his own reward according to 
his individual service. The δέ after φυτεύων and the δέ after 
ἕκαστος are both adversative. Apart the servant is nothing; \ 
yet all accomplish together one great work ; notwithstanding | 
this oneness in the work, every servant has his own work and 
reward. 

μισθόν, ‘‘ wage;”? consisting, not in his salvation, but in 
something he will receive in addition. Christ calls it partici- 
pation in His joy (cf. Matt. xxv. 21). 

κόπον, “toil”?; stronger than ἔργον, “ work,” and than 
πόνος, “labour,” which does not occur in St. Paul’s writings, 
except in Col. iv. 13, where we must read πολὺν πόνον. 
Κόπος expresses, not merely the labour spent in doing a work,\ - 
but also the weariness and exhaustion that follows. It is the) ἀν 
usual word in the New Test. to denote the devotedness of the | 
Christian worker (cf. xv. 58; Col. i. 29; 1 Thess. ii. 9). 

V. 9. He repeats for emphasis in another form the ground 
of the three inferences just drawn. ‘The emphasis is on the 
thrice-repeated Θεός. 

Θεοῦ συνεργοί, “ God’s fellow-workers” ; genit. of relation, / 
as συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος (Rom. viii. 29). As the prominent 
idea is that God works in the Church, we must not render it 
genit. of the object: “ workers with one another for God” 
(Est., Olshaus., Heinrici). Besides, this is not the construe- 
tion of συνεργός elsewhere in the New Test. Cf. Rom. xvi. 8, 
9, 21; 1 Thess. ii. 2, where Lachm. reads συνεργὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ; 
Mark xvi. 20. Γάρ introduces a proof. It is because he that | “i A 


Ἄ 


planteth and he that watereth are fellow-workers with God) ὁ ὁ 
that they are one. Σ᾽ υνεργοί is not synonymous with διάκονοι, 
but expresses alike freedom and service. ‘The priest was a 
slave ; but the minister is the free associate of God” (Vinet, 
Past. Theol., Introd. § 1). This new conception of the free- 
dom of the service helps to bring out more clearly the idea 
contained in κόπος and μίσθος. Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 1, where the 
declaration that the Apostle’s work was a service (διακονία) 


76 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


immediately follows a declaration of the liberty which Christ 
has brought. 

Θεοῦ γεώργιον, “ God’s field,” arvum, “ tilth,’? “land for 
tillage” (cf. John xv. 1). God is the husbandman who tills 
the Jand (cf. Heb. vi. 7). Chrys., not so well, makes Θεοῦ 
genit. of possession: God is the owner, we the tillers. Cf. 
Isa. lx. 21, “the shoots of My plantation, the work of My 
hands.” 

Θεοῦ οἰκοδομή, “a house built by God.” Cf. 2 Cor. v. 1; 
Rom. xiv. 20, where the metaphor of building is in the 
| Apostle’s mind (Heb. iii. 5). The metaphor of the field 
describes the raw material on which God works; that of the 
house describes the result of the work. The hl represents 
the individual Christian in his secret power of life and endless 
growth ; the house represents the Church in its unity of plan, 
in the beauty and strength of its structure. The metaphor 
of the building lends itself more easily than that of the farm 
to the Apostle’s purpose in the subsequent verses and’ leads 
naturally to the highest conception, that of God’s temple in 
ver. 16. <A favourite metaphor (cf. viii. 1; x. 23; 2 Cor. vi. 


16; Eph. ti. 21). Οἰκοδομὴ does not occur in Attic before 
Aristotle. 


(2) What is taught must be in character with the Divine 
foundation and plan. 


(iii. 10-15). 


V. 10. The new conception is introduced with a repetition 
of the three inferences already stated, in the form of a personal 
application to the Apostle himself. The grace of God has 
made him what he is; the unity and plan of his work has 
been decided by the form and position of the foundation; he 
has had his own special work to do. 

χάριν. Meyer, De Wette, Alford, Kling, explain it to mean, 
not office, but ability. Neander combines both meanings. 
Elsewhere the words “according to the grace of God given 
unto me” refer, not indeed to the Apostolic office generally 
(except in Rom. xii. 3), but to the special commission to 
preach to the Gentiles (cf. Rom. xv. 15; Gal. ii. 9; Eph. iii, 
2,7; Col. i. 25). He refers here to his mission, partly to 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—1II. 9-11. 77 


efface the apparent arrogance of the words “ as a wise master- 
builder”? (Chrys., Theophyl., Meyer), partly to intimate, 
through the Apostle’s nothingness apart from grace, that God 
is the doer of the work. 

σοφός, “skilled,” the original meaning of the word (ef. 
Xen., Mem. I. iv. 7). It was not till Plato’s time that δεῖνος, 
which hitherto meant “fearful,” took its place to denote 
practical skill, while σοφός began to be applied mostly to 
theoretical wisdom. But σοφός continued to be used, as it 
were semi-technically, as the designation of a good craftsman 
(cf. Exod. xxxvi. 4; Isa. 111. 3). 

ἀρχιτέκτων, “master-builder”’; defined by Plato, Polit. 259, 
as ἐργατῶν ἄρχων παρεχόμενός ye που νῶσιν ἀλλ’ οὐ 
χειρουργίαν. God is the designer or “architect,” in the 
modern sense of the word. The Apostle is ‘‘ master of the 
works.” 

θεμέλιον. In Rom. xv. 20, the metaphor of a foundation 
is used of the first introduction of the Gospel into a place; 
here it denotes the stability of the building, which rests on 
a foundation, and the plan of the whole structure, which is 
determined by the form of the foundation.} 

For τέθεικα ABC have ἔθηκα. Sv Lachm., Tisch., Weste. 
and Hort. 

ἄλλος, a mere ἐργάτης, yet a συνεργὸς Θεοῦ. He means 
Apollos, who had now left Corinth, and even the other 
teachers, whom he censures for Judaistic tendencies. 

V.11. Jesus Christ is the foundation. This is still another 
way of stating two of the previous inferences. If Christ is 
the foundation, Paul and Apollos are nothing; if Christ is 
the foundation, the plan of the superstructure has been deter- 
mined. Variety is possible in the materials; but the idea of 
the Divine Architect cannot be changed. To lay another 
foundation would be to alter the whole design, and that would 
destroy the very idea of the Church (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 4; Gal. 
i. 7). But the insertion of worthless materials into the super- 
structure does not necessarily destroy the Church. Hence 
κείμενον mneans “laid by the Divine Architect,’ whose the 
design is. Κεῖσθαι means that the foundation has been laid 


1 Cf. Athan., C. Arian. II. 74: ᾿Ανάγκη δὲ τὸν θεμέλιον τοιοῦτον εἶναι ola καὶ τὰ 
ἐποικοδομουμένα ἐστιν, ἵνα καὶ συναρμολογεῖσθαι δυνηθῇ. 


78 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


and now lies in its place fixed and immovable. Cf. Matt. v. 
14, 15, where a city is said to be κειμένη, but of a lamp it 
is said τιθέασιν. Κεῖσθαι combines the neuter and the 
passive meanings (cf. Plat., Rep. p. 484, Stallbaum’s note). 

παρὰ after ἄλλον (cf. Luke iii. 13; Heb. ii. 8). 

δύναται, not ‘has a right” (Grot.), nor “dare” (Billr.), 
but “can.” For if another foundation is laid, the structure 
raised upon it is not the Church (cf. John x. 7; xiv. 6; Acts 
iv. 12). 

Ἰησοῦς Χριστός. δαὶ ABCD omit ὁ before Xp.; for the 
Apostle is speaking of the historical person Jesus Christ, the 
only possible foundation of a historical Church. Cf. Middleton, 
Greek Article, note to Mark ix. 41. The foundation is not the 
doctrine concerning Christ (Grot., Hodge; similarly Melan- 
chthon explains it of the articles of faith). Through the 
preaching of the doctrine Christ Himself is brought into that 
relation to men which creates the Church, The expression 
is intentionally paradoxical. The allusion is perhaps to Isa. 
xxviii. 16. In Eph. ii. 20 the Apostles and the prophets of 
apostolic times are described as the foundation.!. This is the 
historical growth of the Church. In a similar way the Church 
itself is said to be historically “the pillar and basement of 
the truth” (1 Tim. iii. 15), sct-led on the foundation. Here 
the Apostle speaks of the idea of the Church. The very design 
of a historical Church implies that it is erected on a personal 
Christ as its foundation. i 

Vy. 12-15. On this foundation let every man see that he 
raises a superstructure that will bear the test of the judgment 
day. ‘This is the third of the above inferences,—the responsi- 
bility of the servant. 

V.12. ἐπὶ τὸν θεμέλιον. In Eph. ii. 20, ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ. 
The accus. is used when prominence is to be given to the act 
of laying the stones, the dat., when their position on the foun- 
dation is the more prominent notion. 

χρυσίον. . . καλάμην. Asyndeton in enumerations, 
espec. of opposites (cf. Plat., Prot. 319). Maybe the Apostle 
alludes to the houses of new Corinth, built, no doubt, of 
various materials; the columns of ancient edifices being raised 


1 I prefer this explanation of Chrys. to that of Calvin, that the words mean 
the foundation laid by Apostles and prophets. 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—III. 11, 12. 79 


from the ruins and made to support a thatched roof of reed 
cut in the marshy plain around. Or he may be thinking also 
of Solomon’s temple, in the construction of which gold, silver, 
marble, and the better sort of timber were used (cf. 1 Kings 
vi.). The allusion would then prepare us for the mention of 
the temple in ver. 16 (cf. Isa, liv. 12). ‘The more perishable 
materials were used for huts and private houses of even some 
pretensions ; for the walls, the poorer qualities of timber (τὰ 
τῶν οἰκίων ξύλα, Xen., Anab. II. ii. 16) or mud mixed with 
grass (χόρτος) ; for the roof, straw-thatch (καλάμη, cf. Verg., 
Ain. VIII. 654, ““ Romuleoque recens horrebat regia culmo ”’) 
or the lighter sort of reed (κάλαμος). The Apostle is not 
thinking of two buildings, the one a hut, the other a palace 
(Cor. a Lap., Wetst., Stanley). The less valuable materials 
would be properly used for a hut. The absurdity to which 
the Apostle refers is that men should use perishable materials 
in building a temple. 

ξύλα, “timber,” so Cranmer’s Bible. The plur. denotes 
wood cut into shape. 

What do the two kinds of materials represent? Many in 
the early Church thought the Apostle meant the difference 
between a godly and an ungodly life, and even Bernard (Serm. 
de Ligno), Bengel, and Hofmann maintain the Apostle is 
describing the different kinds of persons whom the teachers 
admitted into the Church. The strongest argument is that of 
Webst. and Wilkins., “that the entire passage is an expansion 
of Θεοῦ οἰκοδομή ἐστε, which is repeated in 16, 17.” They 
add ‘that the foundation is explained to be a person.” This 
suggests the answer to their argument. The Apostle laid the 
foundation, which was Christ, by preaching the doctrine con- 
cerning Christ, and it is through his doctrine that the teacher 
can exclude corrupt persons from the Church. Excommuni- 
cation was, in the early Apostolic age, vested in the Church, 
not in the teachers (cf. v. 4; vi. 1-5; 2 Cor. 11. 8, 10). It 
could only to a very limited extent be designated the ἔργον of 
the teacher,—the business of his life, what is distinctly his own. 
Add, (1) that the analogous metaphor of seed sown is used by 
Christ of doctrines as well as of persons (cf. Luke viii. 11). 
(2) All the materials in the buildiug rest on the true founda- 
tion, which cannot be said of ungodly persous, (9) Worth- 


80 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


lessness is not an expression strong enough to designate 
wicked men; but it precisely sets forth the nature of those 
doctrines that do not produce an eternally abiding result. 

V.18. ἑκάστου. . . γενήσεται. This is grammatically 
the apodosis to ver. 12. The ἔργον consists, not simply of the 
materials mentioned in ver. 12, but of those materials when 
built into the house by men’s hands. Before the builder 
placed them in the wall, they were a heap of things, having 
no character of their own (ὁποῖον). 

ἡ γὰρ ἡμέρα δηλώσει, undoubtedly the day of Christ’s second 
coming (cf. 2 Tim. iv. 8; 2 Thess. 1.10; Heb. x. 25). That 
day is always represented as a day of judgment. But τοῦ 
Κυρίου is here omitted, to’ lay special emphasis on its being, 
not only a fixed time for judgment, but also a day as opposed 
to night (cf. Rom. xiii. 12). The Apostle speaks of life as 
a night and death as the break of day; while Christ, on the 
contrary, represents life as the day and death as the night. 
The contrast is suggestive of the terrible meaning which his 
own death had to the Saviour’s mind, and the Apostle’s 
confidence that that death had taken away the sting of death 
for all believers. 

ἀποκαλύπτεται. Cicum., Neander, and some others con- 
sider τὸ ἔργον to be the subject. But this would make the 
next words tautological. The subject is ἡ ἡμέρα. The day 
of Christ comes with burning judgment. It is this fiery 
judgment that reveals it to men (cf. 2 Thess. i. 7, 8, ἐν πυρὶ 
φλόγος), that is, the flaming fire will be the signal of Christ’s 
coming. 

ἐν πυρί, not “by means of fire,” but “ enwrapped in fire” 
(cf. Meyer’s good note). The Apostle applies to Christ’s 
coming, “the natural description of a theopbany in Biblical 
language” (Cheyne on Isa. xxx. 27). The pres. ἀποκαλύπ- 


1 The doctrines referred to are clearly not radically false and soul-destroying 
errors, but frivolous and worthless ones (so Aquinas, De Lyra, etc.). The 
difference may be exemplified by the incident related of Abp. Leighton. ‘‘Ina 
synod he was publicly reprimanded for not ‘ preaching up the times.’ ‘* Who,’ 
he asked, ‘does preach up the times?’ It was answered that all the brethren 
did. ‘Then,’ he rejoined, ‘If all of you preach up the times. you may surely 
allow one poor brother to preach up Christ Jesus and eternity ’’’ (Pearson, Life 
of Leighton). Luther alluded to this verse when he applied the epithet 
* letter of straw” to the Epistle of James. 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—Itl. 18. 81 


teTat is probably used, not so much to mark its nearness, as 
to express its nature. It is a day of such a kind that fire is 
the only fitting revelation of it. 

ἑκάστου. ‘The unity of structure makes it impossible for 
men to distinguish the work of one builder from that of 
another. God only can say where the work of one man ends 
and that of another begins. The extent no less than the 
quality of the work will be judged. 

épyov. The word has a tinge of the Aristotelian meaning, 
“function,” “the entire activity of a man’s life.” It is doubt- 
ful whether ἔργον is nom. or accus. Neander thinks the 
former more in St. Paul’s style. In that case, it is better, 
with Hofmann, to consider αὐτό accus. after δοκιμάσει. But 
this makes ἔργον too emphatic. That αὐτό must not be 
omitted is certain. It is found in NABC. Meyer and 
Alford explain αὐτό to mean that the fire by its own nature 
will test the work, which is a truism. Rather αὐτό emphasises 
mip: ‘the very fire will try it.’ Other tests may leave the 
thing where it was before; though judgment has been passed, 
power is wanting to execute the sentence. Fire will utterly ἡ 
consume what cannot stand the test. 

What is this fiery test? The undoubted reference in the 
passage to the second coming of Christ disproves all the in- 
terpretations that explain it of the events of the present life, 
such as the destruction of Jerusalem (Hammond), the work 
of the Spirit (Colet, Calvin), the spiritual development of the 
Church in knowledve of doctrine (Neander), tribulation (Aug., 
Aquinas,' Bernard, Melanchth.). Neither does the Apostle’s 
notion resemble the Romanist conception of purgatory.” For 
(1) he speaks of a probation, not of a purification ; (2) the fire 
tests, not the man’s moral character, but the teacher’s work, 
whether it is worthless; (3) the reference is to the second 
coming, not to what takes place in the intermediate state 
between death and the judgment; (4) the work of every man, 


1 They explain it of the “‘ emendatorius ignis”’ as well. 

2 Gregory the Great (Dial. IV. 39), who consolidated the floating notions of 
earlier writers into a doctrine of purgatory, and the Council or, as Bishop Bull 
calls it, the Cabal of Florence, a.p. 1439, base the doctrine on this passage. 
But, among Roman Catholic expositors, Colet, Estius, and Maier reject the in- 
terpretation. 


6 


82 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


even the best, must be tried in the fire, a notion not admitted 
into the definition of purgatory. Still less can the Apostle 
mean the fire of Gehenna (Chrys., @cum., Theophyl.). The 
only natural explanation is that it means the judgment which 
Christ will pass on men at His second coming. So Origen 
(whose πῦρ καθάρσιον must not be confounded with purgatory, 
his account of which we have in De Princ. 11. xi. 6; Hom. in 
Exod. vi. § 4), Basil (De Spir. Sancto, 15), Greg. Naz. (Orat. 
xxxix. p. 690), 'Theodoret, and among the Latins Tertullian 
(QO. Mare. IV. 2), Lactantius (Inst. VII. 21), Ambrose (Hnarr, 
in Ps. exviii.). The word “ fire”? is used metaphorically, 
in keeping with the colouring of the whole passage, as in 
Isa. Ixvi. 15; Mal. 111. 2; as the symbolical πῦρ φλέγον on 
Sinai, Exod. xxiv. 17. It is in the very design of the spiritual 
temple that it should pass unharmed through the most search- 
ing trial. The fire is not the punishment, but the test,— 
πύρωσις τῆς δοκιμασίας (Diduche, c. 16). 

Vv. 14, 15. ‘The test being that’ the building should be 
fire-proof, the owner, who is also represented as the designer, 
of the house, will reward the builder whose work passes un- 
scathed through the fire, but will inflict a penalty on him 
whose work is burned; yea, that servant will himself barely 
escape out of the conflagration that consumes his work. 

μενεῖ. The future was suggested by Beza, to correspond to 
mataxancetat. So Griesb., Lachm., Tisch., etc. ‘The indice. 
marks the certainty of the fact ian some work will abide, 
some will be burned. 

τινος, emphatic in both verses. The least will receive his 
wage, if his work endures; the greatest will pay a penalty, if 
this work is burned. 

μισθόν, not his salvation, which is a χάρισμα (Rom. vi. 23). 
‘Cf. Matt. xx. 8. What it consists of has not been told, 
except in metaphor. ‘The eschatology of the Bible is sym- 
bolical.””? (Cheyne on Isa. Ixvi. 24.) 

Υ. 15. κατακαήσεται, Hellenistic for κατακαυθήσεται (cf. 
2 Pet. ii. 10; Rev. xviii. 8). 

ξημιωθήσεται, sc. τὸν μισθόν,---8 will be mulcted of his 
‘expected wage. Supply accus. of quantitative object. The 
‘emphatic αὐτός that follows proves that ξημιωθήσεται does not 
mean “he shall.be punished.” Neither can ἔργον be the object 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—III. 13-20. 83 


(Hcum., Scalig., Est.) ; for the burning of the work is the 
owner’s, not the workman’s loss; and it is the fact that he 
has incurred loss through the servant’s unfaithfulness that 
justifies the owner in withholding his wages and inflicting 
a fine. 

αὐτός. The man himself will be saved, though his work will 
be burned. Asa worker he suffers loss; but his salvation is 
through faith. Yet his salvation even will be through the fire 
of the conflagration that consumes his work. He deserves for 
his unfaithfuluess to forfeit his salvation and perish with the 
unbeliever. But he is saved as if through the very flimes (cf. 
1 Pet. iii. 20). He is asmoking firebrand (Isa. vii. 4). Neither 
here nor anywhere else can διά mean “ notwithstanding.” 
Chrys., @cum., Theophyl. explain σωθήσεται διὰ πυρός of the 
endless duration of the pains of Gehenna. But σώζειν nowhere 
has the meaning of τηρεῖν (Jude 6). Many expositors consider 
ὡς διὰ πυρός to be a proverb, signifying difficulty. So Scalig., 
Grot., Wordsworth. But the reference to πῦρ in ver. 13 is 
evident. The metaphor requires us to suppose the fire is 
kindled at once. It is not that a fire happens to break out 
afterwards (Riick.). The fire is purposely lit to try the build- 
ing, and that before the workmen are gone. He whose work 
feeds the fire escapes only through the flames. Hither the 
Apostle represents the second coming of Christ as close at 
hand (Stanley, Hofmann), or he considers that every man’s 
work continues through the ages till the Son of Man appears. 


(3 ) The worldly-wise teaching of party-leaders destroys God’s 
temple and incurs His displeasure. 


(iii. 16-20). 


Chrys. and others join these verses closely with what imme- 
diately precedes. De Wette, Meyer, Osiander, Stanley, etc., 
consider them to be a new argument against party-spirit. 
The previous metaphor of a house naturally leads up to that 
of a temple, and indeed implies it. The materials intended 
by the designer to be used in the construction of the house 
were the proper materials for building a temple. Notwith- 
standing this, the thought moves onward. The Apostle has 


84 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


spoken of men who would be saved, though their work would 
perish. He refers now to those whom God will destroy with 
their work. From transitory work built on the true founda- 
tion, he passes to the crafty wisdom of the world, which is in 
direct antagonism to Christ. The new argument seems to be 
that party-spirit is sometimes the introduction into the Church 
of the wisdom of the world, which would craftily subvert the 
kingdom of God, Teachers that bring into the Church the 
principles of the enemy of Christ, God will destroy, because 
destruction of the Church is sacrilege. Indeed, to say that the 
Church is a temple is but another form of the general concep- 
tion of these chapters,—the imconsistency of dissension with 
the mystical union between Christ and the believer. When 
Clement of Rome (Ad Cor. 2) congratulates the Corinthians on 
the cessation of schism among them, the word he uses to ex- 
press their repugnance of dissension conveys just the notion 
of the Apostle that the Church is a sanctuary. ‘ All sedition 
and all schism was in your eyes an abomination (β δελυκτόν),᾽ 
—an allusion to Christ’s words (Matt. xxiv. 15), “‘the abomina- 
tion of desolation standing in the holy place.”? We may infer 
from this remark of Clement that the Corinthians understood 
the point of the Apostle’s argument and felt its force. 

V. 16, οὐκ οἴδατε; This searching question is much more 
than a reference to the common-place of Philo and others that 
man is a dwelling of God. It is more also than an expression 
of surprise. Their want of spirituality had left them in ig- 
norance of the indwelling of the Spirit. He dwells in every 
believer, but the carnal Christian does not know it. 

ναός, “sanctuary”; not merely οἶκος ἔνθα Θεὸς προσκυνεῖται 
(Hesych.), but “the house in which God dwells.” The ἱερόν 
is the sacred enclosure, τέμενος (cf. Hdt. VI. 19; Joseph., 
Antig. VILL. πὶ. 9, ναοῦ & ἔξωθεν ἱερὸν ὠκοδόμησεν). In no 
instance, not even in Matt. xxvii. 5, is vads used for the whole 
sacred building (cf. 2 Cor. vi. 16; vi. 14-16). Though ναός. 
is here anarthrous, it must be rendered “the temple” (cf. 
Winer, Gr. ὃ XIX. 1 a). Neander is wrong in saying that 
the art. is omitted because the Apostle speaks only of a single 
Church. But Estius is equally mistaken in arguing from the 
use of the sing. that the reference is only to the universal 
Church. As in οἰκοδομή, so in ναός, the Church as a whole 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—III. 16, 17. 85 


is meant. Every believer is God’s temple; yet the whole 
Church is but one temple. This is so, not only because the 
allusion in the word to the substitution of the spiritual order 
of things for the Temple at Jerusalem implies that there is but 
one temple, but also because the very nature of the Church 
involves the idea of unity. Similarly in the Epistle of 
Barnabas ναός sometimes denotes the Church, sometimes the 
heart. We have a beautiful analogy to the Apostle’s use of 
the word ναός in the appellation given by Polycarp, Ad Phil. 
4, to the poor widows that received the alms of the Church— 
θυσιαστήρια Θεοῦ. 

τὸ Πνεῦμα. . . ὑμῖν. This is the proof that they were 
the temple of God (cf. 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. ii. 22). The words 
have often been used to prove the divinity of the Spirit. So 
Ambrosiaster. Cf. Basil, Contra Hunom. III. p. 276; Athan., 
De Incarn. p. 704; Ambrose, De Spir. Sancto, IIL. xii.; Aug., 
De Trin. VII. 3; Contra Mawim. 11. 21. Similarly Pearson, 
On the Oreed, Art. VIII.: “If the Spirit were any other 
Person not Divine, or anything but a Person though Divine, 
we could not by any means be assured that He did properly 
inhabit in us; or if He did, that by His inhabitation He could 
make a temple of us.” 

V.17. If the Church be God’s temple, he who destroys it 
is guilty of sacrilege, and will himself be destroyed. 

φθείρει. Tert., De Pudic. xvi., has vitiat; Aug., De Lib. 
Arbit. 111. xiv., corrumpit ; but in Contra Ep. Manich. xxxix. 
he adds that many Latin interpreters feared to use the word 
“corrupt,” and said “ destroy.” Vulg. and Beza have vivlat 
for φθείρει, and perdet for φθερεῖ. Wycliffe: “If ony defoulith 
the temple of God, God schal leese him.”? Erasmus defends 
the use of two words on the ground that a play was intended 
on the Greek word, which cannot be rendered by one word in 
Latin. But I cannot find that φθεέρω ever means to “ pollute 
a holy place.” The destruction of a temple is, of course, 
a sacrilege and a defilement. But this is an inference which 
the Apostle draws in the next words. Deyling (Obs. Sucre, 
IL. p. 505, cited by Grimm, Lew.) says the Jews considered 
the pollution of the ‘l'emple to be its destruction. But this 


a “Simul omnes,”’ says Herveus on xii. 4, “unum templum et singula 
-templa sumus, quia non est Deus in omnibus quam in singulis major.” 


86 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


notion of pollution is alluded to im ἅγιος, not expressed in 
φθείρω. 

φθερεῖ. The retribution corresponds to the sin. The next 
ver. introduces the idea of sacrilege, and φθερεῖ is an allusion 
to the punishment inflicted for sacrilege under the Old Test. 
But the law of Moses, like the Roman law, punished sacrilege 
with death (cf. Lev. xvi. 2; 2 Sam. vi. 6, 7). Whether the 
Apostle, however, means temporal or eternal death is a 
question that cannot be answered. He has left it purposely 
unanswered. God’s rule of action has not been revealed, and 
may vary in different cases. 

ὁ yap ... ὑμεῖς. The majority of expositors consider 
ναός to be the antecedent of οἵτινες. De Wette, Meyer, 
Alford, Hofmann make ἅγιος the antecedent. Their reasons 
are: (1) the meaning of ὅστις as distinguished from ὅς, to 
denote one of a class; but this is not decisive, for ὅστις may 
be used when the relative clause is explicatory of the principal 
clause (cf. Ellicott on Gal. iv. 24). (3) The number of ofteves ; 
but this, again, is not decisive; for the attraction of the 
relative subject into the number of the predicate of the relative 
clause occurs, though not frequently (cf. Hdt. V. 108, τὴν 
ἄκρην at καλεῦνται κληΐδες τῆς Κύπρου ; Plat., ναί. 405, τὸν 
οὐρανόν, ods δὴ πόλους καλοῦσιν, and Winer, Gr. § XXIV. 3; 
Poppo, Proleg. in Thuc., 1. p. 105). (8) The tautology that 
results from making οἵτενες refer to vaos; but we do not get 
rid of the tautology by referring οἵτινες to ἅγιοι ; for, in that 
case, “‘ye are the temple of God” must be understood as the 
minor premise of the syllogism ; and the relative clause, “ who 
are holy,’ will be the conclusion. It is not likely that the 
Apostle would express the conclusion in the form of a relative 
clause. (Acts v. 16 is not an instance; for οἵτενες ἐθεραπεύοντο 
is not an inference but an additional statement.) It is better, 
for these reasons, to understand the relative clause as the 
minor premise, the conclusion being Jeft unexpressed: “ The 
temple of God is holy; ye are the temple of God; [therefore ye 
are holy].”’ 

V.18. μηδεὶς ἑαυτὸν ἐξαπατάτω. Theophyl., Hst., Meyer 
join this warning to “him will God destroy,” as meaning 
either “let no man deceive himself by thinking he will not 
suffer punishment,” or “let no man deceive himself by think- 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—1rI. 17, 18. 87 


ing that party leaders are not destroying God’s temple.” 
Most expositors join it to what follows: “ Let no man deceive 
himself by thinking he is wise when God judges him to be 
a fool.’ The connection is, I think, double. Let no man 
deceive himself by thinking God will not destroy the destroyer 
of His temple. But this form of self-deception is the result 
of another, which consists in a mistaken conception of what is 
true wisdom. He who is governed by the principles of the 
world deceives himself by thinking that to be wisdom which 
in the eyes of God is folly. His mental attitude unfits him 
to understand that goodness is wisdom. He is blind to the 
idea of holiness, and cannot discern in the Church the sanc- 
tuary of God. 

δοκεῖ, not “seems to others” (Vulg., Hrasm., Neand.), but 
“thinks”? (Beza and most expositors). Cf. viii. 2; Phil. iii. 
4. ‘This is evident from ἐξαπατάτω. It is a warning to false 
teachers, whose danger arises from an erroneous estimate of 
their own wisdom, based on the principles of the world, 
the antagonist of Christ and His Church (cf. Gal. vi. 3; Isa. 
v. 21). 

ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ (cf. note on i. 20). Origen (Contra Cels. 
I. 13), Chrys., Luther, Hofmann join the words to μῶρος 
γενέσθω : “If any man thinks himself wise in relation to the 
Church (ὑμῖν), let him become a fool in relation to this world.” 
But if this implies that the words “in this world” are not to 
be understood in the conditional clause and, therefore, that 
the wisdom on which the man prides himself is not the 
wisdom of this world, it is certainly not the true explanation. 
It is not mere self-conceit or an undue estimate of one’s own 
attainments in Christian wisdom that the Apostle rebukes. 
Self-conceit does not destroy God’s temple. The Apostle is 
showing the danger of introducing into the Church the prin- 
ciples of the world. The consequent clause is indefinite: ‘‘ Let 
him become a fool, not only in the wisdom of this world, but 
in all, even in Christian wisdom.” 

ἐν ὑμῖν, in emphatic contrast to ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, and so 
denoting the attempt to bring the wisdom of the world into 
the Church, the very opposite of the world. It is to be 
observed also that the Apostle does not say εἴ τις ὑμῶν. The 
false teacher was among them, not of them (cf. 1 John ii. 19). 


88 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


V. 19, Proof of the statement that self-deception as to 
the folly, vanity, and weakness of the principles, of the world 
is at bottom the reason why men endeavour to destroy God’s 
᾿ temple. 

παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ, “before God” as judge (cf. Rom. 11. 18; 
Hdt. III. 160, παρὰ τῷ Δαρείῳ κριτῇ). The words allude 
to ver. 17, and mean that God has passed a judgment of 
condemnation on the wisdom of this world. Its wisdom is 
“before”? God as He is present in the Church, in the same 
sense in which false gods are said in Exod. xx. 3 to be 
“before” Him, as if desirous of obscuring His glory, veritably 
affronting ”? Him, but soon brought into the position of a 
criminal standing “before”? God to receive sentence. The 
Divine judgment is not that of the future exclusively, but 
declares itself in the judgment of the Church (cf. xiv. 24, 25). 

ὁ δρασσόμενος is not in grammatical construction simple 
because the words are a citation (cf. Heb. 1. 7). The LXX. in 
Job v.13 has 6 καταλαμβάνων σοφοὺς ἐν τῇ φρονήσει. But 
πανουργία is nearer the Hebrew, as in Josh. ix. 4 and Prov. 
i. 4, The two words πανουργία and δρασσόμενος bring into 
prominence the contrast between the weakness and cunning 
of men and the strong grasp of God. ‘The verse is, there- 
fore, favourable to the opinion, maintained by Bleek and 
others, that the Apostle sometimes corrected the LXX.; and 
this renders superfluous the conjecture of Kautzsch that the 
Alexandrian translation of the Book of Job was not yet in 
use among the Jews of Palestine when the Apostle wrote. 
Δράσσεσθαι (akin to Eng. grip, grasp) occurs nowhere else 
in the New Test. ; ; 

év,asinanet. The world has been caught in its own net 
and “‘ worsted with its own weapons” (Chrys.). Its wisdom 
has been convicted of folly because it judged to be folly God’s 
mystery of salvation. Aristotle defines πανουργία as ““ δεινότης 
with a bad aim,” and Plato hardly ever uses the word except 
as the opposite of σοφία (cf. Menex. p. 247). His description 
of the ideal judge (Itep. p. 409 C.) should be read in the light 
of what the Apostle says concerning the false wisdom and the 
spiritual man. As he that forms a healthy judgment often 
passes for a simpleton, because he has no evil in his own soul, 
so does the spiritual man in the eyes of the world. Again, as 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—11I. 19-21. 89 


the cunning wise man, with his ill-timed suspicions, turns out 
to be a fool in the company of good men, because he has no 
sample of goodness in his own soul to enable him to recognise 
goodness in others, so the wise are caught in their own crafti- 
ness by that manifestation of God’s wisdom which is given to 
the spiritually minded in the Church. Occasionally in class. 
authors also we meet with an ambiguous use of σοφός for 
“ over-subtle” and ‘‘ wise ” (cf. Verrall’s note on Eur., Med. 
600). 

V. 20. The previous citation has told us that God in and 
through the Church actually turns the schemes of the world 
into folly. Another citation refers to the judgment passed in 
the mind of God on the principles and counsels that give birth 
to the world’s futile efforts to destroy God’s temple. The 
Apostle has mentioned three distinct stages in the Divine 
retribution : first, the destruction of the men who endeavour to 
destroy the Church ; second, the subverting of their schemes ; 
third, the condemnation of their principles. The present 
citation is from Ps. xciv.11. The Apostle follows the LXX. 
but substitutes σοφῶν for ἀνθρώπων, an accommodation to his 
purpose which is justified by the object of the psalm. For 
it describes the haughtiness of God’s enemies and their folly 
in thinking God did not see them. The foolish arrogance of 
Israel’s oppressors was to the Church under the Old Test. 
what the senseless pride of a worldly philosophy is to the 
Church of Christ under a more spiritual dispensation. 

γινώσκει, “knows” the inmost nature. It is the exact 
equivalent of DY which denotes “ the knowledge that goes to 
the root of the thing ” (Delitzsch). 

διαλογισμούς (cf. Wisd. ix. 14, λογισμοὶ yap θνητῶν δειλοῦ). 
The word has usually an unfavourable meaning in the Book of 
Wisdom and the New Test. (cf. Wisd. i. 8, σκολίοι διαλογισμοί). 

V. 21. Conclusion of the section, but to be also closely 
counected with what immediately precedes. This verse is co- 
ordinate with i. 91. 

ὥστε, “therefore.” The imper. is really not construed with 
ὥστε, but arises from a sudden and emphatic change from the 
oratio obliqua to the oratio recta (cf. x. 12). See Hllendt, Lew. 
Soph. s.v.: “Quando cum imperativo dicitur, item rem 
faciendam certo documento firmat.” 


[ 


90 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


KE. Fourta ARGUMENT AGAINST THE F ACTIONS. 
(ii. 22, 23). 


This short, but pregnant, section is co-ordinate, logically, 
with the previous three Arguments against dissensions in the 
Church. ‘The first was based on the relation of the Church to 
Christ as its Saviour, the second on its relation to the Holy 
Spirit as revealer, the third on its relation to God who giveth 
the increase. An additional argument is now drawn from the 
prerogative of the Church itself as possessor of all things. 
Far from having lordship over the Church, the teachers are 
servants of the Church, and that because they are its pos- 
session. They are ὅλως ἐκείνης. They have no side of their 
being of which the Church is not absolute owner.! This is not 
an exceptional privilege. The Apostle recognises in it a truth 
of universal application. The Church possesses the teachers 
in precisely the same way in which it possesses all things. 
Outside the Church there is no real possession. The power 
that most truly subjugates and uses for its own ends ail things 
is faith; for to this omnipotence of the weak Christ has 
put all things in subjection. But faith means the subjection of 
the spiritual man himself to Christ; and it is in virtue of the 
subjection of the Church to Christ that all things, with the 5016. 
exception of Christ, are subjected to the Church. With his 
wonted eagerness to trace all facts back to God, the Apostle 
adds, that the subjection of all to the Church is not arbitrary, 
but rests on the same principle as the subjection of the Church 
to Christ. For Christ’s lordship is based on His subjection 
to God, and springs from His self-effacing obedience. The 
Church, in like manner, has lordship over all things in so far 
as it yields absolute obedience to Christ; and the power and 
effectiveness of every teacher’s life will also depend on his. 
subjection to the Church. 

V. 22. The emphatic word is πάντα, “not the teachers 
only, but all things.” Yet the argument is not, “ Do not say - 
that Paul or Apollos is yours; for all things are yours.” The 
Corinthians did not say, “ Panl is mine; Apollos is mine.” 


1Itis difficult not to see in this the Greek conception of the free πόλις, the 
κοινωνία τῶν ἐλευθέρων, Which exists for the good of the governed. 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—III. 22. 91 


They said, “I am Paul’s; I am the possession of Apollos.” 
The Apostle retorts, “ On the contrary, they are your posses- 
sion ; for all things are yours.” 

εἴτε. . . . μέλλοντα. This enumeration of the things 
that constitute the πώντα is quite in the Apostle’s manner 
(cf. Rom. vii. 38). It is a representative, not a detailed, list 
of the kinds of things contained in the πάντα, and divides itself 
into three pairs of opposites: the Apostles and the world; life 
and death ; things present and things to come. 

First. Paul, Apollos, Cephas were set in opposition to one 
another by the Corinthians. But their real opposition to “ the 
world” destroys every threatening tendency to mutual hostility, 
and renders the contrast between them a harmony. Hence 
κόσμος does not here denote the entire human race, as if the 
Apostle were making a sudden leap from Peter to all men 
(Est., Cor. a Lap., Bengel, Osiand., Kling), nor the ordered ᾿ 
entirety of creation (Meyer, Hodge, Cremer). ‘These concep- 
tions are included in ἐνεστῶτα. Ribiger (Krit. Untersuch. 
Ῥ. 54) and Hofmann rightly consider κόσμος to mean, as in ver. 
19, the kingdom of evil which stands over against the kingdom 
of Christ. This kingdom of evil is now subjected to the 
Church, and believers wrestle against its κοσμοκράτορες (cf. 
Hph. vi. 12; Col. ii. 15; John xvi. 33). Of men, the subju- 
gated slaves of this kingdom, Christ forms His Church. ‘ All 
things are conquered by wisdom,” was a maxim among Greeks 
and Romans. The world’s wisdom, says St. Paul, is conquered 
by the Church. No man, therefore, can be sovereign over 
conscience. We may add, as a legitimate corollary, that the 
Apostle’s argument is fatal to the theory that the Church 
consists, in so far as it has authority in controversies of faith, 
not of “a congregation of faithful men” or “all who profess 
and call themselves Christians,” but only of a select number 

_of the teachers (cf. 2 Cor. i. 24). 
Second. Chrys., Theophyl. and Grotius think ἕωή and 
θάνατος refer to the teachers, who are willing to live or die for 
. the Church. Chrys. offers an alternative explanation, adopted 
by Theodoret: ὁ τοῦ Αδὰμ θάνατος & ἡμᾶς, ἵνα σωφρονι- 
σθῶμεν, καὶ ὁ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἵνα σωθῶμεν, which leaves ζωή 
unexplained. Neither can the former be the correct view; 
for the notion is already contained in εἴτε Παῦλος κ-τ.λ., and 


92 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the abstract terms, ζωή and θάνατος, would hardly be used 
(cf. Phil. i. 21). Most expositors understand ἕω to mean 
vital existence, which is included in ἐνεστῶτα (cf. 1 Tim. iv. 8). 
We should rather say that “life”? and “ death,” in keeping 
with the spirit of the passage, are haif-personified and denote 
the two great powers of the spiritual world, the one compre- 
hending all that human nature fears and abhors, the other all 
it loves and hopes for (cf. 2 Tim. i. 10; Heb. 11.14). So also 
in Rom. viii. 88 ζωή and θάνατος are in a way personified and 
enumerated with angels, dominions and powers. 

Third. ἨἘϊνεστῶτα will, therefore, denote the present state 
of existence,—its possibilities, its work and the results, while 
μέλλοντα will include all the future in its eternal development, 
ever increasing revelations, and consummation of glory (cf. 
Pim. vis 19). 

κόσμος usually has the article, but not here, partly because 
it is in an enumeration, partly because it expresses a quality 
(cf. note on πνεῦμα, ii. 18). 

πάντα ὑμῶν is repeated in order to close with a formal and 
complete enumeration of the series of subordinations. “ All 
things yours; you Christ’s; Christ God’s.”. For the same 
reason ἐστιν is omitted, as in ABCD. The word πάντα 
sums up the three pairs of opposites, which comprehend the 
three spheres in which men’s entire existence moves,—the 
sphere of nature, the sphere of the supernatural or unseen 
universe, and the sphere of the Church or Christianity. 

V. 93. ὑμεῖς δὲ Χριστοῦ. On its Divine side the Church 
isa δεσποτεία. The argument is twofold: “Do not subject 
yourselves to men; first, because ye are subject to Christ ; 
second, because men are subject to you in virtue of your sub- 
jection to Christ.”” The Apostle even here rises above tlie 
partial view that Christianity is merely a revelation of a 
Divine plan for the salvation of the individual. If that were 
all, Christ would exist for the sake of the Church§ not the 
Church for the sake of Christ (cf. Eph. i. 22). 

Χριστὸς δὲ Θεοῦ. He connects the subordination of all 
things to the Church, through the subordination of the Church 
to Christ, with the subordination of Christ to God. ‘This is 
stated because it implies, on the one hand, that the authority 
of the Church is formed after the pattern of Christ’s authority, 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—IIl. 22, 28. 93 


that is, it is based on subordination; on the other hand, that 
the supremacy of the Church has in it a Divine element, inas- 
much as it springs ultimately from God’s authority. Meyer 
and others think these words are intended as a saving clause, 
lest any might think the Apostle in the previous words 
favoured the claim of the Christ party. But the words 
“Christ is God’s ”? would, in that case, denote, not subordina- 
tion, but exaltation, and mean that Christ is too high to be 
the head of a party. The genitive Θεοῦ could hardly admit 
of this meaning, which, besides, would be a different mganing 
from that of the genitives ὑμῶν and Χριστοῦ. 

In ante-Nicene times the reference in these words was under- 
stood of Christ’s mediatorial office and His assumption of 
humanity. Clement of Rome, for instance, seems to have this 
passage in his eye when he says, ὁ Χριστὸς οὖν ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ 
καὶ οἱ Ἀπόστολοι ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Ad Cor. 42); and 
Ignatius speaks of a series of subordinations analogous to this : 
ὑποτάγητε TO ἐπισκόπῳ καὶ ἀλλήλοις, ὡς ὁ Χριστὸς τῷ 
Πατρὶ κατὰ σάρκα καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι τῷ Χριστῷ καὶ τῷ Πατρὶ 
καὶ τῷ Πνεύματι (Ad Magnes. 13). So Calvin, Cajetan, 
Estius, Cor. a Lap., Olshaus., De Wette, all of whom refer the 
words to the humiliation of the God-Man. On the other 
hand, the Greek Fathers of the dogmatic period refer them to 
the Son’s eternal generation. Thus Theodoret says, Χριστὸς 
δὲ Θεοῦ ὡς vids γνήσιος, ἐξ αὐτοῦ yeyevynuévos κατὰ τὴν 
θεότητα. So Herveeus, Meyer, Kling, etc. The Apostle is 
evidently speaking of a subordination in the sense of subjection 
to God’s authority. Now the Greek dogmatists connected 
this subordination with Christ’s eternal sonship. They assigned 
to the Son not only γέννησις, but also, as its necessary conse- 
quence, ὑπηρεσία. So apparently Tertullian also (C. Praz. 16). 
But Ambrose and Augustine disconnected this notion of 
inferiority (τὸ ὑποδεέστερον εἶναι) and ministry from that of 
sonship and connected it with the Son’s incarnation. If this 
is not done, the incarnation is nothing more than a continua- 
tion of the eternal sonship under the altered conditions imposed 
by the assumption of humanity. Another passage explained 
by Chrys. to be a reference to the eternal fatherhood and 
souship is xi. 3. He strives to rebut the inference, which 
the heretics were not slow to draw, that a certain inferiority 


94 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


(ἐλάττωσίς τις) belonged to the Son. In commenting on the 
same verse Ambrose (De Fide IV. iii.) says that God is the 
head of Christ secundum incarnationem. Again, the words of 
Christ, ‘‘ The Father is greater than I,” are cited by Athana- 
sius, Basil, Gregory Nazianzen, and Chrysostom in proof of 
the doctrine of the Son’s subordination κατὰ θεότητα. But 
Augustine explains them of His incarnation (Contra Mavim. 
Arian. I. 5 et al). If, in order not to imperil the doctrine 
of the Son’s equality with the Father (Phil. 11. 6), we must 
distinguish between generation and subjection,! and as the 
Apostle here speaks of subjection, we must accept the refer- 
ence of the words to the Mediator, the God-Man. 

But, what is of no less importance, the Apostle speaks, not 
of Christ’s obedience unto death, but of His present state of 
exaltation, which continues the obedience and service in a 
heavenly form. The exaltation of Christ is the glory of 
unending service. As the θεάνθρωπος he is still subject to 
God, and the Apostle elsewhere intimates (xv. 28) that a 
further subjection awaits Him, that God may be all in all; and 
this will also be the Son’s final and supreme exaltation. His 
present life in heaven is a life of consecration to God on behalf 
of the Church (cf. Rom. v. 10; vi. 10; Heb. vii. 25). If it 
were not so, He would not have been through the ages 
sukduing the wills and hearts and consciences of men, nor 
have made myriads willing to die for Him. 


F, Conciupine Remarks. 
(iv. 1-21). 
(1) A personal appeal from the judgment of men to that of 
Christ. 
(iv. 1-8). 

The Apostle, having exposed the errors of the Corinthians 
respecting their teachers and their office, adds an earnest 
declaration of its true nature, and ends with a lofty appeal 
to the judgment of Christ, whose servant he is—an appeal 


that reminds us of Aristotle’s description of high-mindedness ; 
only that the Apostle’s greatness of soul is rooted in a pro- 


1 Bp. Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. IV. 2. 1) identifies ‘ auctoritas ” and “ origo.” 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—IV. 1. 95 


found sense of duty and a vivid realization of God’s judgment, 
resulting in dignity without pride, humility without mean- 
ness. 

V.1. Most expositors join οὕτως with ὡς, which makes the 
transition abrupt and emphatic, but sacrifices the reference in 
the verse to the close of the previous chapter. The Apostles 
are servants and possession of the Church because the Church 
is the possession of Christ. ‘ As such, therefore, and from 
this point of view, let us be judged.” 

λογιζέσθω. The notion is taken up by the word κρίνω. 
“So far you may judge us and no further; so far, that is, 
as to account us servants of God and, therefore, exempt from 
your judgments.” 

ἄνθρωπος, for Tis, a rare usage in class. Greek, not mentioned 
by Lidd. and Scott. But cf. Ast, Lea. Plat., Prot. 355 A. 
The Apostle, however, borrowed it from the use of WN in this 
sense. It passed to the sub-apostolic writers, e.g., Hp. ad 
Diogn. 7. It is an over-refinement to suppose, with Beng. 
and Osiand., that the Apostle uses the word to distinguish 
between the judgment of man and that of God (cf. xi. 28; 
but ἕκαστος in Gal. vi. 4). 

ὑπηρέτας, lit., “ under-rowers.” But we are not to suppose 
any allusion to the literal meaning ; in a war-galley all that 
performed any service, except the soldiers, were called ὑπηρέται. 
Διάκονος implies “ trust;” and, in allusion to Christ’s de- 
parture and continued absence, this became the name of a 
class of officers in the Church. But ὑπηρέτης implies sub- 
ordination! and long afterwards became the name of the 
ὑποδιάκονοι (cf. Suic. s. v.). From the Apostle St. Luke 
borrowed it (Luke 1. 2). 

οἰκονόμους, “ house-stewards,” in allusion to Θεοῦ οἰκοδομή 
(iii. 9; cf. 1 Tim. iii. 15). The steward, though himself a 
δοῦλος, stood in the master’s place (cf. Plat., Polit. 259, 
οἰκονόμος Kal δεσπότης ταὐτόν). In relation to the δεσπότης 
the οἰκονόμος was a δοῦλος, but an ἐπιτρόπος in relation to 
the ἐργάται (cf. Matt. xx. 8; Luke xvi. 1,13; and Hpictet. 
111. 24, τοῦ Θεοῦ διάκονοι). 

μυστηρίων (cf. note on ii. 7). The metaphor of the house- 


1 Trench (Syn. p. 32) says, on the contrary, that the ὑπηρέτης had more 
official character and functions than the διάκονος. 


Ἁ 


96 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


steward is not dropped. The wisdom which had been hidden 
but is now revealed is the treasure which the stewards dis- 
pense on behalf of the οἰκοδεσπότης to the household (ef. 
Matt. xxiv. 45). The notion of distributing contained in 
οἰκονόμος accounts for the use of the plur. μυστηρίων. 
Aquinas, Olshausen and others explain it of the sacraments. 
Cf. Philo, De Pram. p. 929, μύστην γεγονότα τῶν θείων 
τελετῶν. Properly speaking, the sacraments are not mysteries 
in the New Test. meaning of th word, that is, a thing 
revealed. They are instruments of revelation, not the revela- 
tion itself (cf. Arnold, Fragment on the Church, p. 29). That 
the sacraments are included is probable. But if they alone 
were meant, the Apostle would not have said in 1. 17 that 
Christ had not sent him to baptize. 

V. 2. ὧδε. The phrase ὃ δὲ λοιπόν (text. rec.) occurs 
nowhere else. The reading of δὲ ABCD and Vulg. (hic) and 
several of the Fathers is ὧδε, which is adopted by Lachm., 
Tisch., Westc. and Hort, while ὃ δέ is retained by De Wette, 
Olshausen, Hofmann. The weight of evidence is in favour 
of ὧδε, but it is difficult to fix the meaning. (1) Kling, 
Stanley, etc.: “in this matter.’ But ἐν τοῖς οἰκονόμοις 
would then be redundant. (2) Alford: “here on earth;” 
as if a contrast were indicated between the stewards into 
whose faithfulness an enquiry is made on earth, and God’s 
stewards, who refuse to submit to any earthly judgment. 
Shore considers we have here, not a contrast, but an analogy : 
“ As in the case of an earthly steward, inquiry is made, so 
will it be in the case of God’s stewards.” But the notion of 
responsibility first appears in ver.5. In Heb. xiii, 14 ὧδε 
means “on earth;”? but all danger of ambiguity is there 
obviated by the word μέλλουσαν. (3) Lachm. joins ὧδε to 
ver. 1: “stewards of the mysteries of God in this matter.” 
The position of ὧδε is harsh, and μυστηρίων makes it re- 
dundant. (4) Meyer’s rendering yields an excellent meaning: 
“such being the case;” that is, such being the nature of our 
condition as servants of Christ and stewards of God’s mysteries ; 
ὧδε being equivalent to εἴπερ ὧδε ἔχει (cf. Soph., Philoct. 
624, πεισθήσομαι yap ὧδε). Christ’s servants and the stewards 
of the mysteries of God should, because they are such, take 
no heed of men’s judgment, but be faithful to their Lord. 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.-—IV. 2, 3. 97 


λοιπόν, “for the rest,” ceterum. If the Apostles are 
servants of Christ, nothing else remains for them except to 
be faithful. Their whole duty is comprised in being faithful. 
Auth. and Revised Versions incorrectly: ‘“ moreover.” 

ἵνα, denoting the object of ζητεῖται. Meyer’s opinion that 
iva is always telic cannot be sustained (cf. i 10; xiv. 12; 
John xv. 8). The phrase ζητεῖν λόγον is class., but with παρά, 
not ἐν. ἈἈπαιτεῖν ἐν would be used. 

εὑρεθῆ. The word looks back to ζητεῖται. The master 
seeks and expects to find faithfulness, when the steward 
renders his account (cf. Luke xii. 43; 2 Cor. v. 3). It is 
incorrect, therefore, to suppose εὑρεῖν is here an Aramaism 
for εἶναι (Cureton, Corp. Ignut. p, 271).1 Cf Clem. Rom., Ad 
Cor. 50, ἵνα εὑρεθῶμεν ἄμωμοι. 

V.3. ἐμοὶ 5& We might have expected οὖν. “ Since 
faithfulness to his Lord is required in. a steward, therefore I, 
being God’s steward, will pay no heed to your judgment.” 
But the sing. ἐμοί introduces, not a general statement, but 
an earnest and emphatic personal expression of the Apostle’s 
determination, the more emphatic because all reference to 
others is suppressed. 

eis ἐλάχιστόν ἐστιν, “ it amounts to very little,” when com- 
pared with God’s.judgment. This use of eis to express the 
point to which something rises or is reduced is class., and 
inust be distinguished from the Hebraistic use of εἰς as a 
secondary predicate. 

ἀνακριθῷῶ, not “to be judged whether I am faithful or 
- not”? (Aquin., Beng.), but “to be examined, sifted, so that 
all my faults shall be made manifest”? (cf. Luke xxui. 14; 
Acts iv. 9; xii. 19), The Apostle knew that on the score. 
of faithfulness nothing could be laid to his charge. But 
ἀνακρίνειν implies that even if men were to bring to light 
the hidden things of darkness (ver. 5), it would be a matter 
of little moment to him, because they had no jurisdiction. 
The judgment of God at once confers worth on the judgment 
of men, when the latter is an echo of the former, and prevents 
our over-estimating it when it is not (cf. 2 Cor. 1.12; iv. ἃ; 
Gal. i. 10). 

1 In Isa. liii. 9, the LXX. has, in the Alex. MS., «εὑρέθη, though the notion of 
finding is not in the Hebrew. 

¥ 


98 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ἢ ὑπὸ ἀνθρωπίνης ἡμέρας. This is added to explain why 
he made light of their judgment. It was not from. personal 
contempt, but because man is not his judge. The phrase is 
not equivalent to ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων. The latter denotes the 
judgment of public opinion; but ὑπὸ ἀνθρ. ἡμέρας denotes 
the judgment of the constituted authorities as representing the 
principles of the world. No doubt the phrase was suggested 
by the use of ἡμέρα Κυρίου in Isa. xiii. 6; Joel i. 15; Zeph. 
i, 14. It implies indirectly a contrast between men’s day and 
Christ’s, acontrast necessarily springing from the fundamental ~ 
difference between the κόσμος and the Church, the kingdom 
of evil and that of Christ, the present and the future, the 
natural sphere and the spiritual. It is unnecessary to suppose, 
with Jerome (Hp. cxxi. Ad. Algas.), that the phrase is a 
Cilician provincialism, or, with Theod., that it is an allusion 
to the shortness of life. 

ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἐμαυτὸν avaxpive, “but I do not bring even 
myself to trial and I pass no judgment upon myself.” The 
judgment of his own conscience even is not absolute and 
final (cf. 1 John iii. 19, 20). The reference is not to ‘‘ morbid 
spiritual analysis”? (Webst. and Wilkins.) He appeals, not 
only from an unhealthy subjectivism, but also from the healthy, 
‘but imperfect and erring, judgment of conscience to the judg- 
ment of God. We cannot fail to mark the suggestive contrast 
between this avowal of inability to judge oneself and the em- 
phatic claim made by the Apostle in chap. 11. on behalf of 
the spiritual man, who judges all things. Self-knowledge is 
more difficult than knowledge of revealed truth. 

V. 4. οὐδὲν yap ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδα, “for I am not conscious 
of any unfaithfulness as steward of God’s mysteries.” Of, 
Plat., Apol. p. 21, οὔτε μέγα οὔτε σμικρὸν ξύνοιδα ἐμαυτῷ 
'σοφὸς ὦν, and Job xxvii. 6. The clause is not simply con- 
cessive, as if the next clause alone contained the reason why 
the Apostle did not judge himself, This would have required 
“μέν. Both clauses depend on γάρ: “I do not judge myself; 
for I am not conscious of fault, so as to condemn myself: I 
do not judge myself; for I am not absolved by being free 
from the condemnation of my own conscience.” He ascribes 
to conscience authority to condemn, and denies to conscience 
‘the power ‘to absolve. Cf. Rom. ii. 15, where κατηγορεῖν 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—IV. 3-5. 99 


implies the condemnation of conscience, but ἀπολογεῖσθαι 
means, not acquittal, but merely a defence. Similarly the 
Apostle John says that when conscience condemns, God con- 
demns, but the silence of conscience does not involve that 
God absolves. He adds, what is only suggested in the 
language of St. Paul, that if our heart condemn us not, we 
have confidence before God. This is hinted at in δεδικαίωμαι : 
the silence of conscience is a ground of hope that he has been 
justified (cf. Heb. xii. 18; 2 Cor. i. 12; v. 9, 10). 

δεδικαίωμαι. Cor. a Lap. and Estius understand this of 
the dogmatic justification, as in Rom. i. 17, in accordance 
with their definition of justification as renovatio interioris 
hominis. Melanchthon (Postilla, vol. xxiv. p. 687, edit. 1856), 
Riickert, Meyer also explain it of dogmatic justification, but 
in a forensic sense. Chrys., Theod., Theophyl., Calvin, De 
Wette, etc., refer it to the approval bestowed on the faithful 
servant when he gives an account of his stewardship. Cf. 
Toenat., Ad Rom. 5; Barn., Hp. iv. 10, μὴ καθ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς ἐνδύ- 
νοντες μονάζετε ws ἤδη δεδικαιωμένοι, and xv. 7, and it is the 
only sense in which Barn. uses the word “ justification.”? As 
this is an appeal on the part of the steward of God’s mysteries 
to the judgment of God, who will bring to light the hidden 
things of darkness and burn the worthless materials which 
the servant may have placed in the walls of the temple, the 
notion of justification through faith is foreign to the general 
purport of the passage. Of course the denial of present 
justification includes that he has not been justified by the 
law. By the use of the perf. the Apostle intimates that the 
case is still pending. In the next clause this judgment is 
ascribed to the Lord Jesus, to whom the act of forensic justifi- 
cation is never assigned. That Κύριος means Christ is proved 
by ver. 5. ‘ Ad tribunal tuum, Jesus Christe, appello,”’ said 
Pascal, in the spirit of St. Paul. 

V.5. ὥστε. Cf. note on iii. 21. 
πρὸ καιροῦ, “before the appointed time,” when the saints 
wili jadge as the Lord’s assessors (cf. vi. 2). 

τὸ is accus, of respect, not of the object, which would have 
been τινας. 
_ ἕως ἄν. In class. prose the instances in which ἄν is omitted 
with ἕως before a subjunctive are rare, at least till the time of 


100 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. | 


Plutarch. Cf. Bernhardy, W. S. p. 400. In the New Test. 
it is much the more frequent usage. Cf. Buttmann, N. 8. 
p- 198; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 291. Hermann (De Partie. 
dv, II. 9) and Klotz (Devar. Il. p. 568) think ἕως with the 
subjunctive takes av when either the event itself or the time 
of its occurrence is uncertain. A comparison of our passage 
with xi. 26 seems to prove that in the New Test. there is no 
real difference in meaning between ἄχρις οὗ or ἕως and ἄχρις 
οὗ ἄν or ἕως ἄν with subjunctive Compare xv. 25, ἄχρις 
οὗ θῇ, where 8 BD omit ἄν, with Matt. xxii. 44, ἕως av 06. 

τὰ κρυπτὰ τοῦ σκότους, genit. of possession, in order to ex- 
press more emphatically the power of Christ, who will bring 
into light the things which the darkness holds in its grasp. 
Cf. καρδίας, xiv. 25; Rom. ii. 16; espec. Philo, Quod a Deo 
mittantur somnia, p. 578, ᾧ πάντα προῦπτα καὶ ὅσα ἐν μύχοις 
τῆς διανοίας ἀορώτως ἐπιτελεῖται, and Col. i. 19. 

ὃς καί, “who also,” besides judging, will make manifest, 
etc. 

φωτίσει, ie. εἰς φῶς ἄγειν (Suid., cf. 2 Tim. i. 10). But 
in John i. 9; Eph. iii. 9, it means “ to enlighten.” The word 
is comparatively late Greek. 

βουλάς. It is not enough, in order to pass judgment on 
men, that the hidden things should be brought to light. The 
motive must also be known. 

τότε, emphatic: “ then, not before; but then at once.” 

ὁ ἔπαινος, “the praise due to each.” Cf. ὁ μισθός, Rom. 
iv. 4. Ἔπαινος is not a vow media, including the censure of 
one and the praise of another. The Apostle refers to the 
servant, who has built on the true foundation, and will receive 
his due praise, neither more nor less. 

ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ. Christ brings secret things to light; God 
passes judgment. It is the Divine element in Christ’s judg- 
ment that makes it absolute and final. This finality is well 
expressed by ἀπό (cf. Rom. ii. 29, ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ). “Ex means 
that the act of judging passes in God’s mind and the judg- 
ment formed is by Him pronounced ; it is, therefore, an inde- 
pendent judgment. ‘Amé denotes that the judgment proceeds 
ultimately from God and cannot be traced to any higher 
authority ; it is, therefore a jinal judgment. 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—IV. 5-13. 101 


(2) A Sharp Rebuke. 
(iv. 6-18). 


V. 6. No better proof of the substantial harmony between 
the Apostle’s teaching and that of Apollos could be had than 
what he now says. They at least cannot have been heads of 
contending factions. For what has been said from iii. 5 to 
iv. 5, the Apostle now tells us, is a kind of parable, in which 
the Corinthians could read their own condition and dangers. 
There were teachers among them who built wood, hay, and 
stubble into the walls of God’s temple, or strove even to 
destroy it. The Apostle—if indeed he knows—will not name 
them. To do so would only establish them the more firmly 
in their position of party-leaders ; and on the other hand, the 
Apostle’s reticence does much to dissolve their influence. 

μετεσχημάτισα. Meracy. means properly “to change the 
figure or shape.’”? It thus approaches to the signification of 
, μεταμορφοῦσθαι, as in Phil. iii. 21 (cf. Rom. xii. 2). But, in 
accordance with the difference between σχῆμα, the change- 
able fashion, and μορφή, the distinctive and abiding form, 
petacy. came to signify “to use a figure of speech in which 
one thing is named and another is meant.” Here, therefore, 
a lesson is conveyed to the Church concerning certain teachers, 
whom the Apostle leaves unnamed, under the “ guise” of a 
statement respecting the Apostle himself and Apollos (ef. 
Plato, Laws, X. p. 906). The word cannot mean “to teach a 
general truth by means of an example” (De Wette, Neander; 
so Cranmer’s Bible: “I have for an ensample descrybed ’’). 
As Meyer remarks, this would not be to change the σχῆμα 
of the truth at all. 

ἐν ἡμῖν, “in our case,” to be joined to μάθητε, but not 
quite synon. with ἐξ ἡμῶν μάθητε. ᾿Εν combines the two 
notions of instrument and sphere. So κρίνειν ἐν ἀνδρί (Acts 
xvil. 31) means, not merely “to judge by means of,” but “ to 
judge in the person of a man.” Cf. John xiii. 35, “ They will 
know by your mutual love that ye are My disciples and will 
see My teaching exemplified in your love.” . 

φρονεῖν, omitted in NA BD Vulg. and the Latin Fathers, 
but inserted in most Greek Fathers. It is rejected by Lachm., 


102 THH FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, but retained by Reiche. It 
may have crept in to complete the expression from Rom. xi. 
3 and is not wanted. Hartung (Partikell. II. p. 153) gives a 
number of examples of the omission of a verb after μή. The 
omission of φρονεῖν turns the words into a maxim and at the 
same time widens their application (cf. μηδὲν ἄγαν). Fora 
similar ellipse cf. v. 1; xi. 24. 

ὑπὲρ ἃ γέγραπται. So NABC. But D has 6, which 
Meyer and De Wette retain, because it may have been altered 
into ἅ to correspond to ταῦτα, with which, however, it has 
nothing todo. Cranmer’s: “beyond that whyche is above 
wrytten.’” So also Mosheim, Neander. In that case we 
should probably have had ἐγράφη or mpoéypawa, as in Eph. 
iii. 8. Hofmann: “above what has been assigned to each by 
God.”’ We should then have to read 6, and the rendering 
unduly strains the meaning of γέγραπται, which very rarely 
occurs in the sense of μεμέρισται or τέτακται, 88 in Pind., 
Nem. 6,13 (7). Eur., Ion. 446, cited by Hofm., is not an 
instance. Surely the Apostle means the Scriptures of the 
Old Test.; not that he refers to any particular passage, but to 
the general spirit and point of view of the Divine revelation. 
So Bengel, Olshaus., Meyer, etc. The facts which he has 
delivered to the Corinthians are “according to the Scriptures ” 
(xv. 8). He claims the same allegiance to the Old Test. 
on behalf of Apollos, who was “strong in the Seriptures” 
(Acts xviii. 24). The words are another undesigned vindica- 
tion of himself and Apollos from the charge of being party- 
leaders. Both kept close to the teaching of Scripture. The 
faithfulness of the steward (iv. 2) turns out to be loyalty to 
the word of God; and, as the faithful servant fears not the 
judgment of men, so also the pride of his self-coneeit is 
quelled by the subjection of his spirit to God’s revelation. 
Both qualities are the opposite of the tortuous intellectual 
cleverness of the Corinthians. Both are the surest safeguard 
of transparent, direct, honest simplicity of character, which, 
in turn, is the best preservative of church order and the only 
remedy against factions. 

iva . . . ἵνα. Both depend on petecynudtica (cf. 1. 
27; Rom. vii. 13; Gal. iii. 14). But the former clause has 
special reference to party-leaders ; the latter to the Church. — 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—IV. 6. 103 


εἷς . . . ἑτέρου, “that ye be not puffed up one on 
behalf of one, and another on behalf of another, against an 
opponent” (cf. 1 Thess. v.11). It is not necessary to con- 
sider it an Aramaism (Winer, Gr. § XXVI. 2 δ). Cf. Plat., 
Laws, I. p. 626, εἷς πρὸς ἕνα, “ individual against individual.” 
It is more individualising than ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων. There was 
at Corinth, not only the common action of one party against 
another, but the strife of one individual for another individual 
against athird. The attachment of a partisan to one person 
was the result of his antagonism to another (cf. note on 1. 12). 
Winer (Gr. § XLVII.) and Olshausen render ὑπέρ by “ over” 
and consider τοῦ ἑνός to mean the opponent of εἷς, “that one 
may not be puffed up over the other,” so as to imagine him- 
self raised above him. But, in this sense, ὑπέρ would require 
the accus. in the New Test. (cf. Matt. x. 24). Besides, it 
would make the words κατὰ τοῦ ἑτέρου redundant. 

φυσιοῦσθε. Gal. iv. 17, ζηλοῦτε, is the only other passage 
in which the use of iva with the pres. indic. is certain. To 
avoid the anomaly Grotius conjectured φυσιοῖσθε and ζηλοῖτε. 
Bengel supposed the Apostle formed the subjunctive of these 
verbs by an erroneous contraction into -ouv instead of -o. 
But the pres. indic. occurs as a various reading in other verbs; 
e.g. A reads ἵνα ποιεῖσθε, 2 Pet.i.10; AC have ἵνα διώκονται, 
Gal. vi. 12; A, σωφρονίζουσιν, Tit. it 4; B, γινώσκομεν, 1 John 
v.20. Others regard φυσιοῦσθε and ζηλοῦτε as Attic futures, 
and cite Thuc. 11. 8; II. 58; where, however, ἐλευθεροῦσιν 
and ἐρημοῦτε are presents, though joined to futures. Meyer 
accepts Fritzsche’s explanation, that ἵνα, when it takes the 
pres. indic. is the local adverb (“ where,’ “under which 
circumstances”’?). But Fritzsche himself abandoned the 
theory as regards our passage, and suggested an alteration 
of the text into ἕνα μή . . . φυσιοῦσθαι, the reading of 
Theod. and, apparently, of Origen (Cat.). Against Meyer’s 
view it may be urged; first, that we should then expect οὐ, 
not μή. Meyer replies that μή is used because the clause 
is subjective. But it is subjective only if the Apostle is ex- 
pressing his purpose. Second, ἵνα does not once occur in the 
New Test. as an adv. of place. It is probable, therefore, that 
we have here an early instance of ἵνα with the pres. indic., 
parallel with the undoubted examples of ἐών and ὅταν with 


104 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the pres. indic., and of iva with the fut. indic. in the Ep. 
of Barnabas (v. 6). Cf. Jelf, Gr. § 806. 2. Obs. 2; Buttmann, 
δ. p.. 202. 

φυσιόω. The class. form is φυσάω (cf. χολάω, John vii. 
23, for the class. χολοῦμαι). The source of party-spirit is 
pride. Cf. Phil. ii. 2, where κενοδοξίω is the cause of ἐρίθεια, 
and its remedy is ταπεινοφροσύνη. The Apostle is probing 
the moral disposition that gave rise to the factions, as he has 
already tested their intellectual reasonableness. 

V. ἡ. The parable is justified. For the case of the Corin- 
thians does not differ from that of a Paul or an Apollos. The 
point of the three searching questions with which the Apostle 
rebukes the self-conceit of the Corinthians is that what any 
man has is not his own, but God’s. 

τίς yap σε διακρίνει; Of the various interpretations that 
have been offered of this question the following alone seem 
deserving of consideration: (1) Chrys., Theophyl., Gicum., 
Olshaus., De Wette, Meyer, Neander, Alford, etc., with slight 
differences among themselves: “Ὁ Who adjudges thee to be 
superior to thy brethren? No one. For God’s judgment is 
not yet, and man’s judgment is not to be accepted.” If this 
means that others do not acknowledge a man’s superiority, 
that of itself is not a reason for humility. He may be justly 
conscious of the possession of superior gifts. If the meaning 
is that one man is not superior to another, that is not true 
in fact and is inconsistent with the next question. If it be 
replied that the Apostle means not superiority of gifts, but 
authority to tyrannize over the brethren, then the meaning of 
διακρίνειν is too much strained. (2) Origen, Calvin, Estius, 
Grotius, Bengel, Hofmann: ‘‘ Who makes thee to differ from 
thy brethren, so that one has superior gifts to another? Not 
thyself nor any man, but God only.” (Similarly Augustine, 
C. duas Hp. Pelag. 11. 7, et al., only that he refers the 
preference to the act of God’s electing grace drawing a man 
ὦ massa perditionis, a notion foreign to the drift of the 
passage.) The objection is that this interpretation approaches 
too nearly the meaning of the second question. On the whole, 
then, we must seek another explanation. The Apostle has 
compared the condition of the Corinthians to that of Apollos 
and himself. In this verse he justifies the comparison by 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—IV. 6-9. 105 


asking who hath made any of them differ from the Apostles, 
so that, while the latter dare not relax in their preparations 
for the judgment of Christ, the former can afford to indulge in 
self-satisfied pride and create factions in the Church. “ Or 
shall we say,” he proceeds, ‘that any one among you has 
anything of his own, while the Apostles have only what the 
Lord has given to each; and that you need not, as they need, 
fear to be called to give an account of a stewardship? If you 
dare not allege this, then why do you boast? ” 

εἰ δὲ καὶ ἔλαβες. The usual distinction between εἰ καί 
and καί εἰ creates a difficulty here and in 2 Oor. iv. 8.} 
The meaning here assigned by expositors to εἰ καί is, not 
“although,” but “even if.” “ Hven if I concede that thou 
hast, yet thou receivedst it from God.” The extremely rare 
use of καί εἰ in the New Test. tends to show that the Apostle 
does not observe the distinction between «ai εἰ and εἰ καί. 
It is true there are many instances in which εἰ καί means 
neither etst, “although,” nor “ etiamsi,” “even if,” but si 
etiam, “if even,” when the καί emphasizes one only of the 
words that follow (cf. vii. 21, and Kiihner’s note on Xen., 
Mem. I. vi. 12, εἰ καὶ τὴν συνουσίαν). But whether we render 
ei καί in our passage by “even if” or by “if even,” we are 
met by the same difficulty, that ἔλαβες is made to be 
synonymous with εἶχες, whereas the Apostle has just before 
distinguished between ἔχειν and λαβεῖν, and immediately 
after uses λαβών in its usual meaning of “ receiving.” To 
avoid this we must render εἰ καί by “althongh.” ‘ Why, 
though thou receivedst from God all thou hast, boastest thou 
as if thou hadst not received it ? ” 

Kkavyaoat, the original, uncontracted form, which appears 
in class. prose in δύνασαι. Cf. Rom. ii. 17; Luke xvi. 25, 
ὀδυνᾶσαι, and the futures φάγεσαι and πίεσαι, Luke xvii. 8. 

ὡς μή, Subjective: “as if thinking thou hadst not received.’ 

Vv. 8,9. Searching questions give place to ironical derision. 
But both are intended to show the folly and sinfulness of pride. 


1 The distinction was pointed out by Hermann, Adnotationes ad Viger. Ὁ. 
664: “ Kal εἰ est etiam si, et καί refertur ad ipsam conditionem, eamque indicat 
non certam esse: etiam tum, st. . . Contra εἰ καί est etsi, et καί conditioni 
postpositum, non ad εἰ refertur, neque conditionem ipsam indicat incertam 
esse,” 


106 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Not only they had forgotten that all they had was from God, 
but they were also satisfied with their present attainments in 
spiritual gifts, as if they were already in possession of Messiah’s 
kingdom, and that to the exclusion of the apostles, through 
whom they had been brought into the Church. As ver. 7 
looks back to ii. 5-10, so ver. 8 is an allusion to ii. 13-15 
and iv. 4, 5. While Paul and Apollos were still building 
God’s temple and awaiting the trial of the day of Christ, the 
Corinthians behaved as if the trial were past and the reward 
gained. Yea, more than this, supposing the Corinthians to be 
right in acting as if God’s judgment upon men were declared, 
then the outward condition of the Apostles was proof of their 
having been already condemned. The Divine Judge himself 
(ὁ Θεός, ver. 9) has to all appearance thrust them upon death. 
If judgment is already come, those men who fondly expected 
to be Christ’s assessors in judging men and angels, have 
themselves been made a spectacle to the world of angels and 
men. But the Apostle mingles his irony with expressions 
of the deep longing of his heart for the appearing of Christ. 
With tenderness and in self-forgetfulness, he avows his wish 
that they might in truth reign with Christ, so he and his 
fellow-Apostles might but share in their glory. 

V. 8. ἤδη κεκορεσμένοι, “already filled to satiety.” Ἤδη 
(that is, οὕτω ταχέως, Chrys.) prepares for the statement of 
the contrast between their condition and that of the Apostles, 
and contains an allusion to the time when Christ will have 
come, no one knew how soon. “ When we are hungry, ye 
are full; while we are waiting for the Lord’s coming, ye are 
satiated and expect nothing.’ The irony of the words is 
the more keen for the contrast between this false conceit of 
fulness, which finds its satisfaction in the present and forgets 
the promise of the Lord’s coming, and the true Christian 
fulness of grace, which is always accompanied by an earnest 
expectation of Christ. Their fulness is not the joy that springs 
from a believing expectation of Christ’s coming, but that 
which renders such an expectation impossible. The words 
are not inconsistent with i. 7, which has reference to their 
former, not their present condition. Κεκορεσμένοι is a meta- 
phor borrowed from satiety in eating: “ye have had your 
fill? (cf. Acts xxvii. 858). 


TOE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—IV. 8. 107 


ἐπλουτήσατε, “ye grew rich.” Cf. Rev. iii. 17, where 
πεπλούτηκα means “I have enriched myself,” and so differs 
from πλούσιός εἶμι. The allusion is to the proverbial self- 
conceit of men who have made their own wealth. This 
prepares for χωρὶς ἡμῶν. 

χωρὶς ἡμῶν, “apart from us.” The Apostles, through 
whom the Corinthians had been brought into possession of 
Christian privileges, were flouted by those Corinthians as 
unworthy to partake of their privileges and to associate with 
them in hope of obtaining them. 

ἐβασιλεύσατε, “ye got the kingdom,” regnum adepti estis 
(Erasm.). The view of Estius and Billroth that the Apostle 
means lordship over a party in the Church makes χωρὶς ἡμῶν 
meaningless. Still it was by being satiated with influence in 
the Church that they had attained to a false appearance of 
the kingly power which will be bestowed on all Christians at 
the coming of Christ. The correct interpretation, that the 
Apostle refers to the second coming, was suggested by Origen, 
and in modern times resuscitated by Cor. a Lap., Meyer, De 
Wette, Neander, Hofmann, ete. 

καὶ ὄφελόν ye, “and would that certainly,” etc, In the 
New Test. and late Greek ὄφελον is simply an adverb. Cf. 
Exod. xvi. 3, with pres. tense; 2 Cor. xi. 1, with imperf. ; 
Gal. v. 12, with fut. With a past tense of indic., as here, it 
expresses a wish which is, at the same time, impossible of 
attainment (cf. Rev. ii. 15). In exclamations and expressions 
of a wish γέ often occurs, Cf. Eur., Iph. in Aul. 70, ὥς ye 
μήποτ᾽ ὦὥφελεν λαβεῖν. Sometimes καὶ. . . γέ, “and 
certainly,’ introducing with force an unexpected addition 
(cf. Xen., Mem. 111. viii. 6). After ironically taunting the 
Corinthians with the pretence of kingship, the Apostle gives 
utterance to his desire for the coming of Christ. His dis- 
appointment at the spiritual degeneracy of the Corinthians 
aud, perhaps, his own sufferings at Ephesus make him !ong for 
rest. Theod. observes that in other passages συμβασιλεύειν 
denotes the Christian’s reigning with Christ (cf. 2 Tim. ii. 12) ;. 
and elsewhere (Col. i. 28) St. Paul describes believers as 
presented perfect in Christ Jesus before God’s throne by him- 
self and other teachers. Here he expresses a wish to reign 
with these Corinthians, to be presented, that is, by them. 


108 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


In Col. i. 24 he strikes a higher note and rejoices in his 
sufferings for the Church. 

Vv. 9-13. He enumerates his sufferings and contrasts them 
with the self-satisfaction of the Corinthians. He does this, 
not to account for his wish to see the kingdom of God come, 
but to explain why it was that, while the Corinthian Church 
was racked with contentions, the Apostles presented a united 
front to the world. Satiety left the former a prey to factions ; 
sore trials made any considerable disunion within the apostolic 
college impossible. 

V.9. δοκῶ, “ methinks ;” not implying doubt, nor ironical 
(Grot.), nor a strong asseveration (Hcum., Wordsw.), but the 
expression of his own feeling and corresponding, therefore, to 
κεκορεσμένοι. Theirs was a feeling of self-satisfaction; his, 
of self-surrender to God’s will. Hence ὁ Θεός is emphatic. 
“Ye are become kings, but your greatness is of your own 
making; we suffer, but our sufferings are appointed by God.” 
Yet this must not be thought to destroy the irony of the 
passage as a whole. 

τοὺς ἀποστόλους. Babes in Christ imagining themselves in 
possession of the kingdom, while Christ’s ambassadors, through 
whom they believed, are exhibited before the world as men 
condemned to death ! 

ἐσχάτους, not “the last Apostles” (Wycliffe, Hrasm., Calvin, 
Beza, Cor. a Lap., Heinrici), as if Paul and his brethren were 
last compared with the Apostles of the Old Test., that is, 
the prophets, or as if Paul were last of all the Apostles. ‘his 
would be τοὺς ἐσχ. ἀπ. Heinrici defends the omission of τοὺς 
before the adj. by reference to x. ὃ, τὸ αὐτὸ βρῶμα πνευματικόν, 
and Gal. i. 4, rod ἐνεστῶτος αἰῶνος πονηροῦ, and Matt. xxiv. 
45,6 πιστὸς δοῦλος Kal φρόνιμος. But φρόνιμος is virtually 
a predicate, and in the other two examples the occurrence of 
another attributive (τὸ αὐτό and ἐνεστῶτος) having the article 
dispenses with the article before the second attributive, even 
in class, Greek (cf. Buttmann, N. S. p. 79). Chrys, Hstius, 
and most modern expositors make ἐσχάτους predicate after 
ἀπέδειξεν. Tynd. and Cranm.: “hath set forth us which are 
Apostles for the lowest of all.” Selden (De Dis Syris, Preef.) 
understands the word to denote the ἐφέδρος or third combatant, 
who sits by to fight the conqueror. It is difficult to see the 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—IV. 9. 109 


propriety of the metaphor. Chrys.: πάντων ἀτιμότεροι. For 
ἔσχατος in this sense cf. Mark ix. 35. Hxtremus is used in 
the same way, and Cicero (Pro Sext. Rose. 137) uses postremus 
for pessimus. The reference is probably to the custom of 
carrying into effect the sentence on men condemned to death 
as a fitting close to the day’s sport, when less sauguinary 
exhibitions had palled on the spectators’ appetite. The 
Apostle’s mind is still full of the thought that Christ’s kingdom 
isat hand. It is the evening of the world’s day of power. 
Already the scene changes; and the last act is played out in 
the worst display of cruelty. 

ἀπέδειξε. Not equivalent to ἐποίησε (Chrys.), which is a 
class. meaning of «ἀποδείκνυμι. The allusion to the θέατρον 
requires the meaning of “exhibiting.” Beza correctly: 
speciandos propusuit (cf. 2 Thess. ii. 4). The ἀπο- has the 
force of “away from oneself,” so that ἀποδείκνυμι is really syno- 
nymous with ἐπιδείκνυμι, “to show forth” (cf. Matt. xxii. 19). 

ὡς ἐπιθανατίους, “as men condemned to death;” to be 
distinguished from ἐπιθάνατος, “hard at death’s door; ” 
though Hesych. seems to use both words in the latter meaning. 
But here at least ἐπιθανάτιος must mean more than ἐν 
θανάτοις πολλάκις (2 Cor. xi. 23) ; for ὡς introduces a meta- 
phor. Indeed @avatow properly means, not “to kill” (as 
Auth. Vers. in Rom. vin. 36), but “to put to death by process 
of law” (cf. Alschyl., Prom. V. 1074, Paley’s note). It was 
Tertullian, apparently, that suggested an allusion to the 
bestiariit, So Colet, Calvin, Hstius, Cor. a Lap., Stanley ; 
but not De Wette and Meyer. The words ἀπέδειξεν and 
ἐσχάτους strongly favour the allusion, and the causal ὅτι 
shows that the words θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν explain more fully 
the covert allusion in ἐπιθανατίους. Cf. xv. 82, ἐθηριομάχησα ; 
Phil. i. 27, στήκετε (“stand your ground in the encounter’) ; 
and Martyr. Ignat. 9, θηρίοις αὐτὸν eis τέρψιν τοῦ θεάτρου 
κοινὴν ἐκδοθῆναι. 

θέατρον, that is, θέαμα ἐν θεάτρῳ, “a theatrical spectacle.” 
Cf. Heb. x. 33, θεατριζόμενοι. Cf. Greg. Naz., Hp. 29, δρᾶμα 
γεγόναμεν, of Tote νομισθέντες εὐδαίμονες. 

τᾷ κόσμῳ, “to a world.” It is not often St. Paul uses 
κόσμος in the sense of “the universe,” as here and viii. 4. 
That a world has been summoned to the spectacle enhances 


110 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


at once their suffering and its dignity. The Corinthians were 
kings because they centred in themselves and were satisfied 
with very small attainments. The Apostles were, indeed, 
covered with obloquy, but it was cast upon them when they 
were doing a work in which men and angels and God Himself 
were interested. The absence of καί before κόσμῳ makes it 
probable, but not certain, that ‘angels’? and ‘“ men” are 
explanatory of “the world.” Cf. Gen. i. 24, τετράποδα καὶ 
ἕρπετα καὶ θηρία, where the three are co-ordinate. But the 
omission of the article before ἀγγέλοις and ἀνθρώποις is also 
favourable to this view. So Tertullian (C. Mare. v. 7) and 
most expositors; but Origen apparently otherwise (Ad Mart. 
18). This comprehensive use of the word κόσμος is remarkable 
because, on the one hand, it is an advance on the Old Test. 
conception of two separate spheres of existence, Heaven and 
Earth, not comprehended under any wider designation ; and, 
on the other, because it differs from the meaning attached to 
the word among the Greeks, inasmuch as the Apostle uses it 
of the spiritual as well as the physical totality of existence. 
The spiritual oneness of the universe is a conception eminently 
characteristic of St. Paul. But it is foreshadowed by Plato 
(Gorg. p. 508), φασὶ δ᾽ of copol . . . καὶ οὐρανὸν καὶ γῆν 
καὶ θεοὺς καὶ ἀνθρώπους τὴν κοινωνίαν συνέχειν Kal φιλίαν 
καὶ κοσμιότητα καὶ σωφροσύνην καὶ δικαιότητα καὶ τὸ ὅλον 
τοῦτο διὰ ταῦτα κόσμον καλοῦσιν. On ἄγγελοι cf. 1 Pet. i, 
12. “The angels of God,” observes Origen (Cat.), “hasten 
to this novel spectacle, to see a man compassed with flesh 
wrestling against principalities and powers.” In Ad Mart. 18 
he rightly includes bad as well as good angels. Cf. Rom. 
vill. 88, é 
V.10, Asyndeton, because this verse is epexegetical of 
the preceding verses. With combined irony and earnestness 
he says in what way the Apostles are the laughing-stock of 
the world, and in what way the Corinthians are kings in the 
Church. The threefold antithesis of fools and wise men, of 
weaklings and strong men, of outlaws and men in honour, is 
an allusion to 1. 28-28, which makes the irony of the words the 
more biting. ‘‘ God chose the foolish, the weak, the despised 
things of the world, and you were at one time willing to be 
fools, weaklings and outcasts for Christ’s sake. But you have 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—IV. 9-11. Li 


succeeded in becoming wise, strong, and honourable in con- 
sequence actually of your being Christians. You have turned 
your Christianity itself into an effective means to restore to 
you the worldly greatness, in another form, which you once 
surrendered in order to become Christians.” 

διὰ Χριστόν. .. ἐν Χριστῷ, “fools on account of Christ ;” 
not in Christ, because he is speaking of the inward motive: 
but “ wise in Christ ;”’ not on account of Christ, because they 
made their objective condition as Christians the occasion of 
pride. They not only succeeded in reconciling these two 
opposites, Christianity and worldly prudence (Neander, De 
Wette), but actually put the latter to rest upon the former. 
Their worldly wisdom was an attainment which they had 
achieved in virtue of their union with Christ. Cf. Jude 4. 
Hence φρόνιμοι is to be closely joined to ἐν Χριστῷ, which, 
therefore, means, not ἐν τοῖς κατὰ Χριστὸν πράγμασιν (Chrys.), 
nor ‘in ejus ecclesia” (Grot.), but ‘‘as Christians.” 

ἔνδοξος carries with it the notion of glitter and show, 
ostentation with a suggestion of pretence. Cf. Adlian., Var. 
Hist. ii. 20, where Antigonus calls kingship ἔνδοξον δουλείαν. 

ἄτιμοι, “ outlaws,” “outcasts.” The contrast is between 
kings and persons stigmatised with social ἀτιμία. 

Vy. 11-18. ‘Our condition proves that we are fools, 
weaklings, outcasts in the eyes of the world.” He mentions 
three things, every one of which proves all he has said in ver. 
10, while each has also a special reference to one or another 
of the three points mentioned. First, the Apostles endured 
hardship for the sake of Christ (ver. 11); and this the world 
would account folly and fanaticism. Second, they abstained 
from retaliating, and even blessed their persecutors (ver. 12) ; 
and this the world accounts weakness and “a noble simplicity.” 
Third, they were outcasts for their religion and the honour 
of Christ; and this treatment of them the world accounted a 
religious rite that might be expected to appease the anger of 
their gods (ver. 13). 

V.11. ἄχρι τῆς ἄρτι ὥρας, with special reference to his 
own sufferings at the time in Ephesus. Ἄρτι, from dpe, “up 
to this very hour,’’? when you imagine the kingdom of Christ 
to have come. 

γυμνητεύομεν, “ we go without sufficient clothing,” the opp. 


112 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


of θερμαίνεσθαι (James ii. 16). Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 27. The form 
γυμνιτεύομεν is read in δὲ A BC Ὁ, and is adopted by Lachm., 
‘Tisch., Treg., Westce. and Hort. The difficulty is that γυμνέτης 
does not occur, but γυμνήτης, from which we should expect 
γυμνητεύω. But γυμνός would correctly yield γυμνίτης and 
γυμνιτεύω. Though, therefore, we cannot, with Alford, assume 
a form γυμνίτης, we need not, with Meyer, suppose a clerical 
error in γυμνιτεύω. 

κολαφιζόμεθω, “ we are buffeted ;” literally so (cf. 2 Cor. 


ΣΙ. 23). 
ἀστατοῦμεν, “we have no home.” Cf. Ep. ad Diogn. 5, 
/ ’ A > "4 > > e , 
excellently : πατρίδας οἰκοῦσιν ἰδίας, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς πάροικοι. . .. 


πᾶσα πατρὶς ξένη. So Heb. xi. 18, 87, 38. The Vulg. has 
instabiles sumus, whence Wycliffe: “ we ben unstable.” Beza 
corrects it into incertis sedibus erramus. 

V.12, κοπιῶμεν ἐργαζόμενοι, “we toil in working.” The 
latter word denotes the Apostle’s self-denial, the former his 
physical weariness. Barnabas and Paul differed from the other 
Apostles in voluntarily refraining from accepting maintenance 
at the hands of the Churches (ix. 6). Cf. 1 Thess. ii. 9; 
2 Thess. 11. 8; Acts xx. 34. He mentions it here as folly 
in the eyes of the world,—that he, a learned teacher, should 
assume the contemptible condition of a mechanic (βάναυσος 
τεχνίτης). On the participle cf. 2 Cor. xi. 7, ταπεινῶν. 

λοιδορούμενον. . . . παρακαλοῦμεν. He passes to what the 
world considers weakness, the humility around which all the 
Christian graces cluster. That humility shines in every grace . 
he shows by three contrasts,—blessing revilers, being patient 
in persecutions, being gentle towards slanderers, 

λοιδορεῖσθαι differs slightly from βλασφημεῖσθαι or its 
equivalent δυσφημεῖσθαι, because it implies “ reviling to one’s 
face,’ and so refers to the sting of the word, while βιλασῴφ. 
(for βλαψιφημεῖν, says Pott, Htym. Forsch. I. 47) is “to 
defame,” and refers to the injury inflicted. 

ἀνεχόμεθα, “we bear up under it;” scarcely so strong a 
word as ὑπομένειν. The former is “to bear patiently,” the 
latter “ to bear bravely.” 

. 18. δυσφημούμενοι. So NAC; adopted by Lachm., 
Tisch., Westc. and Hort. παρακωλοῦμεν, probably not “ we 
pray for them” (Tynd., Cranm., etc.) So Calvin. ‘The 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—IV. 13. 115 


accus. τὸν Θεόν would have been inserted. Theophyl. para- 
phrases, πρᾳοτέροις λόγοις Kal μαλακοῖς ἀμειβόμεθα. But 
“to give a soft answer” is a rare meaning of παρακαλεῖν. 
Basil (Rey. Brev. Tract. cexxvi.) explains it of Christian in- 
struction: συμβιβάζειν τὴν καρδίαν εἰς πληροφορίαν τῆς 
ἀληθείας. To the same effect Orig., O. Cels. V. 63. The 
persuasiveness of the Christian preacher is here opposed to 
unchristian reviling. It is on this its positive side that it 
surpasses the abstention from retaliation urged by Plato, 
Crit. p. 49. 

περικάθαρμα and περίψημα have almost precisely the same 
meaning: “what is scoured or scraped off in cleansing a 
vessel”? Neither word occurs elsewhere in the New Test. 
For the metaphorical sense cf. Dem., ἢν Mid. p. 578, 
καθάρματα καὶ πτωχοὶ Kal οὐδὲ ἄνθρωποι. Many expositors 
see in the words an allusion to an ancient custom in Athens 
of throwing men into the sea as a sin-offering for the people, 
with the words περίψημα ἡμῶν γενοῦ. Hence Luther has 
“ Fegopfer.” Our authority for the existence of such a 
custom is the Schol. to Aristoph., Ran. 731, Plut. 454. De 
Wette sums up the objections to this view: (1) The custom 
had long ceased before the Apostle’s time; (2) κάθαρμα, not 
περικάθαρμα, was the usual word; (3) the plur. would have — 
been used. Similarly Meyer, Hofmann, etc. But (1) even if 
the custom had ceased the allusion would be understood by 
the reader ; the Schol. says it prevailed among the Romans; 
and, if the custom were unknown to the early Christians, it is 
difficult to account for their using the expression, ἐγὼ περί- 
Ψψημα cov, to betoken great affection (cf. Hus., H. H., Hein- 
rich’s Ed., Excurs. xii. 2). (2) Though κάθαρμα is the class. 
word, περικάθαρμα occurs in the same sense in LXX. (cf. 
Proy. xxi. 18). (3) The sing. is used becanse all the offerings 
would make one atonement. Hrasmus mentioned another 
objection, that the Apostle would be arrogating to: himself 
what belongs only to Christ. But he states what the world 
thinks, not what he claims. A stronger objection is the 
probability that the Apostle’s words are a citation from 
Lam. iii. 44 (45 according to the Heb.). On the other hand 
(1) The two words περικάθ. and repiyr. point equally to a 
propitiatory sacrifice (cf. Hesych.). If only one of the words 

I 


114 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


did so, the probability that even that word was so used here 
would be much weaker. (2) The genitives κόσμον and 
πάντων are vague and rhetorical, if there is no allusion to the 
ancient custom; while, on the other hand, the notion of a 
sacrifice that would propitiate the gods for the guilt “ of all 
men,” because of the aggravated crimes of the men so sacri- 
ficed, is a thought distinctly conceived and boldly expressed. 
(3) The allusion is a natural and appropriate description of 
utter disgrace and obloquy. Cf. Schol. ad Aristoph., Hgwit. 
1136: ἔτρεφον γάρ twas A@nvaios λίαν ἀγεννεῖς καὶ ἀχρήστους 
καὶ ἐν καιρῷ συμφορᾶς τινος ἐπελθούσης τῇ πόλει ἔθιον 
τούτους ἕνεκα τοῦ καθαρθῆναι τοῦ μιάσματος, ods καὶ ἐπωὶϊ η- 
μαζον καθάρματα. The subsequent use of περίψημα as an 
expression of Christian love (as in Ignat., Ad Hphes. 8; Barn., 
Lip. iv. 9; vi. 5, ἐγὼ περίψημα τῆς ἀγάπης ὑμῶν) does not 
seem to have been occasioned solely by this verse; for Diony- 
5115 of Alexandria (Eus., H. H. vii. 22) cites it as a popular 
and often unmeaning saying (δημῶδες ῥῆμα). The Latin 
Fathers sometimes retain peripsema (Tert., De Pudic. 14), 
sometimes render it by purgamentum (Vulg.), sometimes by 
lustramentum (Ambrose, Serm. in Ps. exviii.). This variety 
and these words imply that the writers had in their minds 
a special reference. The name “ Stercorius” is said to occur 
frequently on early Christian tombs, perhaps in allusion to our 
passage. 


(9) What has been said is a Father’s Admonition. 
(iv. 14—21). 


Ψ.14. οὐκ ἐντρέπων, “ not by way of making you ashamed.” 
‘The metaphorical use of the act. ἐντρέπω is late Greek, On 
the pres. part. cf. note on ii. 1. In vi. 5 and xy. 34 he does 
‘speak πρὸς ἐντροπήν. 

ταῦτα, considered by most expositors to refer to what im- 
mediately precedes, but equally pertinent to all the Apostle 
has said of the factions in the Corinthian Church. The section 
contains supplementary remarks of a personal nature which 
‘occurred to him on a review of the whole discussion. 

νουθετῶς Admonition is the duty of a father (cf. Eph. vi. 
4). The finite verb is used instead of the part. for the sake of 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—IV. 14-16. 115 


emphasis, as in ix. 27, where ὑπωπιάζω corresponds to δερών 
(cf. vii. 87). Such a transition from part. to finite verb is not 
class. (cf. Buttmann, N. 8. p. 327). 

V.15. μυρίους, a hint that they had already too many (cf. 
2 Tim. iv. 5), Other teachers they might themselves heap up ; 
but they owed their existence as a Church to Paul. 

παιδαγωγούς, whence our “ page,” properly the slaves who 
took the children to school (cf. Plat., Lys., p. 208, παιδα- 
γωγὸς δοῦλος ὧν, ἄγων δήπου εἰς διδασκάλου). But the word 
had also the more general signification of “ tutor,” “ guardian.” 
It seems, however, to have always had a slightly disparaging 
meaning. Hence it is not likely the Apostle uses it here 
simply for teacher. Origen well remarks that the word con- 
tains a covert allusion to the childish state of the Corinthian 
Christians, and would not have been used in reference to the 
Ephesians. 

ἀλλ᾽ οὐ, at certe non; an emphatic contrast (cf. vill. 7; 
strengthened into ἀλλάγε in ix. 2). It frequently occurs after 
a hypothetical clause. 

ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, meaning more than the previous ἐν 
Χριστῷ, as ἐγέννησα signifies more than παιδωαγώγους ἔχειν. 
All Church teaching is to be “ in Christ,” who is the quicken- 
ing spirit of all words and sacraments. But he also quickens 
souls into spiritual life. The name “Jesus” brings into 
prominence the realization in the Apostle’s mind of Christ’s 
personal activity in the Church. He identifies once and again 
the exalted Christ, the source of life, with Jesus, whom he has 
persecuted (cf. ix. 1). 

διὰ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, as the instrument of their conversion. 
Cf. Eph. i. 13; v. 26; 1 Pet. 1. 23; James i. 18. 

ἐγέννησα. Cf. Philem. 10; Gal. iv. 19; 1 John ii. 1; Philo, 
De Virtut. p. 1000, μᾶλλον αὐτὸν ἢ οὐχ ἥττον τῶν γονέων 
γεγέννηκα. ᾿ 

V. 106. μιμηταί, implying more than μιμεῖσθε. It ought to 
be their general character. Hence he does not specify par- 
ticulars. Children are imitators of their father and disciples, 
as Socrates says (Xen., Mem. I. vi. 3), of their teacher in all 
things. The Apostle’s self-denial would not be theirs, if they 
did not elevate their life generally to the level of his, Cf. xi. 
1; 1 Thess. i. 6; 2 Thess. iii. 7~9. 


116 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


V.17. διὰ τοῦτο, not, as Chrys. and Theophyl., because 
the Apostle was their father, for then ver. 16 would be without 
connection, but because he wished them to be imitators of 
him, the wish being implied in παρακαλῶ. Even here διὰ 
with accus. denotes, not the purpose (Alford), but the ground 
or reason cf the act. Of. Winer, Gr. ὃ XLIX. c. 

ἔπεμψα may be epistolary aor., which would imply that 
Timotheus was the bearer of this very Epistle. So Bleek, 
Stud. u. Krit. 1830, p. 625. This would. scarcely be con- 
sistent with ἐὰν ἔλθῃ, xvi. 10. Timotheus had, probably, 
been already sent, perhaps in consequence of the tidings 
brought by Chloe’s servants. Hofmann thinks he had even 
come to Corinth. The Apostle at least evidently supposed 
him to be still on his journey (xvi. 10), probably in Macedonia 
(cf. Acts xix. 22). It is a natural conjecture that, as Timotheus 
had been the Apostle’s companion when he first visited 
Corinth (Acts xviii. 5), he sent him to exhort the Church 
before he decided to write this Epistle, and that, after Timo- 
theus had started on his journey through Macedonia, the 
Apostle resolved to anticipate his arrival by sending a letter 
across the Aigean. 

Paley (Hor. Paul.) has noticed undesigned coincidences 
between this passage and the narrative in Acts. Another 
coincidence is the following. It is not stated in the Book 
of Acts that the Apostle sent Timotheus to Corinth. All we 
know from the narrative is that he went to Macedonia, But 
it is said that Erastus accompanied him. Now this Erastus 
was most probably the treasurer of Corinth (cf. Rom. xvi. 
23). The natural inference is that Hrastus was returning home 
from Asia and that Timotheus’ destination was Corinth. But 
whether he remained in Macedonia or came to Corinth at this 
time is not known. 

τέκνον μου The father sends a son to sons; but a faithful 
son, which some of them were not. It is nowhere expressly 
said that Timotheus was converted by Paul. At the time of 
the Apostle’s second visit to Lystra, he was already a disciple 
(cf. Acts xvi. 1). We infer that he became a Christian during 
the Apostle’s first visit (cf. Acts xiv. 6,7; 1 Tim.i.2, 18; 
2 Tim. i. 2). : 

ἀναμνήσει, milder than διδάξει, yet containing a sting; for 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—IV. 17. 117 


it implies that they had forgotten the ways of their father. 
Timotheus was very young. Ten years after this St. Paul 
bids him so conduct himself that no one would find occasion 
to despise his youth. 

ὁδού;. A youth could bring to their remembrance the 
Apostle’s “ ways in Christ,” and nothing else would be more 
elfective to silence his detractors. A vague expression is 
preferred, because a more definite reference to his self-denial 
would have the air of arrogance, and would not include his 
doctrine and manner of teaching. Cf. James 1. 8; Acts 
xii. 10. 

τὰς ἐν “Χριστῷ, as opposed to the Apostle’s ways in himself. 
Cf. Gal. ii. 20 ; Phil. i. 21. 

καθώς. Of. note oni. 6. It never has the meaning, which 
ὡς sometimes has, of a relative pron., “ what I teach.” He 
is comparing his way of teaching with his life generally, and 
declares the perfect consistency of the one with the other. 

V. 18. ὡς μὴ ἐρχομένου, “as if you thought I was not 
coming.” They had concluded from his sending Timotheus 
that-he dared not come himself. The position of δέ suggests 
that the words ὡς μὴ ἐρχομένου form one notion, “ keeping 
away.” Cf. Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 190; Kiihner on Xen., 
Mem. 1V.i.3. This accounts also for the pres. part., which 
is not for the fut. 

τινες, some, either “ whom I cannot name,’ or “whom I 
could name” (cf. xv. 12; Gal. i. 7). So in Soph., 4). 1138, 
Tut is ironical for coz. 

V.19. ταχέως. Cf. xiv. 6; xvi. 7,8. He intends staying 
in Ephesus till Pentecost. He previously purposed crossing 
direct to Corinth and then proceed to Macedonia. In order 
to give the Corinthians time to repent and rectify abuses, he 
alters his plan and decides to visit Macedonia first (cf. Acts 
xix. 21; 2 Cor.i. 23). The word ταχέως, compared with xvi. 8, 
proves that the Epistle was written shortly before Pentecost. 

Κύριος, that is, Christ (cf. 1 Thess. iii. 11). In Rom. i. 10 
he says Θεός, but in Rom. xv. 32 Lachm. reads διὰ θελήματος 
Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ. 

γνώσομαι, not “I will know” (Rev. Vers.), denoting his 
purpose in trying them, but “Ishall know,” expressing the 
certain result of the trial. 


118 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


δύναμιν, not “the power of domg miracles” (Chrys., 
Theophyl.). Cf. note on ti. 4. Their lack of the Spirit’s 
power to transform men’s character was the test by which the 
Apostle intended to try the pretensions of the party-leaders 
(cf. 1 Thess. 1. 5). 

V. 20. ἐν, not “consists in”? (Alford), which would be 
expressed by the predicate, as in Rom. xiv. 17, but “is 
established on.” It denotes the foundation on which the 
kingdom rests. Cf. note on ii. 5; Heb. ix. 10, ἐπί. 

ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, in allusion to ver. 8. He will test the 
spiritual power of these men, who boast as if they had already 
attained possession of the kingdom ; for that kingdom rests on 
power. ‘This clearly refers to the future kingdom. At the 
same time the power he speaks of is the spiritual power of 
the Gospel (ef. ii. 4). Thus the two conceptions, of a future 
kingdom to be established at the second coming of Christ 
and of a present kingdom consisting in the spiritual condition 
of a believer, run into one. The ethical character of the 
future triumph is identified with the ethical character of the 
present time of warfare. A kingdom erected on words or on 
any other foundation than sovereign authority is not a king- 
dom. If, then, the Corinthian boasters have entered into the 
kingdom of Christ, let them show that they possess its pecu- 
liar attribute, which is spiritual power. 

V. 21. It is more natural to join this ver. to what imme- 
diately precedes than with what follows (as Gicum., Calvin, 
Hofmann) ; for, first, the threat to come with a rod is con- 
nected with the assertion of his fatherly authority ; second, the 
next ver. has no connecting particle and must be the sudden 
bursting of the storm. The Apostle claims that he possesses 
the power of the kingdom. He can wield the rod; and that 
spiritual power is, after all, the power of words. 

ἐν ῥάβδῳ. Though ἐν denotes sometimes the instrument 
eveu in class. Greek, it is here used because of the antithesis 
between ἐν ῥάβδῳ and ἐν aydry—in anger and in love. 
Tert. (Ve Pudic. 14) paraphrases: virga armatum (cf. Luke 
xiv. 31; 2 Cor. ii. 1). 

ἔλθω, “am I to come; it is for you to decide.” The de- 
liberative subjunctive depends on θέλετε. Cf. Luke ix. 54. 

πνεύματι. Chrys., Theophyl., Meyer understand the Holy 


THE FACTIONS IN THE CHURCH.—IV. 21. 119 


Spirit. But the co-ordination of ἀγάπῃ and πνεύματι im- 
plies that πνεῦμα is a disposition of meekness; only it should 
be borne in mind that a good disposition is designated a 
πνεῦμα, because it is the product of the indwelling of the 
Holy Ghost (cf. Exod. xxxi. 3; 2 Cor. iv. 138; Eph. i. 17; and 
Iarless’s note to Eph. iv. 23). In Rom. vii. 15, πνεῦμα 
δουλείας is in antithesis to πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας (cf. 2 Tim. i. 7). 
Again, in Gal. v. 22, “love” and “ gentleness ” are named 
among the fruits of the Spirit. If, therefore, he had meant 
here the Holy Spirit, he would probably have written ἐν 
πνεύματι ἀγάπης τε καὶ πρᾳότητος. But we may still ask, 
Why did not the Apostle say “the spirit of love”’ as well as 
“the spirit of meekness”? The answer is, that ἀγάπη is 
not natural affection, but a Christian grace, which is always 
and necessarily the work of the Spirit of God, whereas πρᾳότης 
is a natural virtue raised by the Spirit into a Christian grace. 
Hence in 2 Tim. i. 7 πνεῦμα ἀγάπης means the Holy Spirit 
as the source of love. 

mpaitntos, the later form, is the reading of ABC. So 
Lachm., Tisch., Westc. and Hort. 


SECOND DIVISION. 


CHURCH DISCIPLINE. 
(v. 1.-σι. 20). 


THoucH we cannot suppose, with Chrysostom and Ambrosi- 
aster, a direct reference in the previous discussion to the 
case of the incestuous person, what the Apostle has already 
said prepares generally for this severe rebuke. The Second 
- Division opens with a sudden, indignant charge. Irony, 
which was befitting in dealing with factious self-conceit, is 
almost entirely laid aside. The style even becomes more 
formal; the march is slower and less jerky. Of no portion 
of the Epistle are Jerome’s words more true, ‘ As often as 
I read the Apostle Paul, I seem to hear, not words, but 
thunders ” (Hp. XLVIII. Ad Pamm. 18). 

The Apostle brings against the Corinthians two specific 
charges, which indeed seem, at first, to be mutually incon- 
sistent. He accuses them of tolerating gross sins of impurity 
acd of not tolerating injuries. Actions that would be a shame 
in the eyes of the heathen these Christians unblushingly avow. 
Losses such as a Christian ought to suffer with equanimity 
for the sake of peace, they carry before the judges. But 
these opposite tendencies are but the development of one 
error. The Corinthians denied or ignored the conception of 
the Church as the body-of Christ. Christianity must create 
for itself an organic body, which is a society complete within 
its own limits. Hence, while it can nourish itself by assimi- 
lating elements which it draws from the world, it must, on 
the other hand, have the power of governing itself, which 


involves the right and duty of excommunication. This power 
120 


CHURCH DISCIPLINE.—V. 1-13. 191 


dwells in the Church in virtue of the spiritual presence of the 
Lord Jesus. In his name and Spirit the Church is ever in pro- 
cess of formation through the washing of regeneration (vi. 11) ; 
in his name and Spirit evil-doers are chastised (v. 4). His 
presence gives birth also to the following leading elemeuts 
of Church life: holiness and joy (v. 8), silent rebuke of sin 
on the part of the individual Christian (v. 11), collective 
censure and excommunication (v. 13), awe (vi. 1), practical 
wisdom in judging and awe-inspiring boldness in pronouncing 
judgment (vi. 8-5), magnanimity and love that brooks imjuries 
and is not exacting (vi. 8). Having shown the relation in 
which the fundamental conception of union with Christ stands 
to Church discipline, the Apostle applies it to explain the 
attitude of Christianity towards those sins of impurity their 
tolerance of which has called forth his rebuke. 

This Division of the Epistle falls, therefore, into two 
sections : 

A. Union of the Church with Christ determining the nature 
of Church discipline (v. 1—vi. 11), with special reference (1) to 
the case of the incestnous person; (2) to the practice of 
accusing brethren before heathen judges. 


B. Union with Christ inconsistent with a life of sensuality 
(vi. 12-20). 


A.—Union with Cuerist Determininc tHE Nature or Cuurcu 
ΤΟΙΒΟΙΡΙΙΝΕ. 


(v. 1-vi. 11). 


1. The Case of Incest. 
(v. 1-13). 

Ch. V. 1, ὅλως. .. πορνεία. Various interpretations 
have been offered of this difficult clause. (1) ‘‘ A common 
saying.”” So Wordsworth: “It is commonly reported, as a 
notorious fact.” But ὅλως will not admit of this meaning. 
(2) “The character of πόρνος is actually borne among you.” 
(Alford). This would be ἀκούει. (8) “ Even fornication is 
reported among you.” But ὅλως does not mean “ even.” 
(4) “Absolutely, without any qualification or doubt, it is 
reported,” etc. For ὅλως in this sense (prorsus) cf. Plat., 


122 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Phileb. 36, ἀλγοῦνθ᾽ ὅλως. (5) “To speak generally (ut in 
univirsum dicam) it is reported that there is fornication among 
you, and, to mention a particular instance of such,” etc. This 
is much the more usual meaning of ὅλως. But this rendermg 
results in a balancing of clauses which is too formal, too much 
in the manner of Isocrates, to be in the Apostle’s incisive 
style. I prefer (4). It would be a natural thing to say that 
this report, which he had not received from the Corinthians 
with the cases of conscience submitted to him, had neverthe- 
less come to his ears without qualification or uncertain sound. 
But ἐν ὑμῖν must be joined with ἀκούεται not with πορνεία, so 
that the verb has virtually two meanings, closely allied, ‘to 
be reported” and “ to be avowed.” 

πορνεία, in class. Greek “ prostitution,” as in vi. 13. Here 
it includes ‘ fornication,” as in Lev. xviii; Matt. v.32. The 
Apostle refers first to all the sins of impurity allowed in 
the Corinthian Church, afterwards he speaks of one kind, 
the case of incest. 

tes. Cf. note on ii. 17. 

ὀνομάζεται, omitted in &% ABCD Vulg. and nearly all the 
Latin Fathers, while the Greek Fathers insert it. Reiche thinks 
it was omitted by a copyist who considered it an exaggeration. 
But it may have crept in from Eph. v. 86. It is rightly omitted 
by Lachm., Tisch., ‘l'reg. Westc. and Hort. understand dxov- 
erat. Of. Cic., In Cluent., “ scelus incredibile et praeter hance 
unam in hic vité imauditum,” in reference to the same crime. 
The Hippolytus of Kuripides turns on a similar case. Cf. 
Seneca, Hippol. 165. It was the sin of Reuben (Gen. xxxv. 
22) and Absalom (2 Sam. xvi. 22). The story of Antiochus 
Soter, to whom his father Seleucus Nicator relinquished his 
wife Stratonice, is told by Plutarch (Demetr. 38, 39). Winer 
(RWB., 5. v. Khe) suggests that the man referred to by the 
Apostle was a proselyte, it being held by the Jews that, when 
a man became a proselyte, his natural relations ceased. The 
word οὐδέ is inconsistent with this supposition. 
γυναῖκα tod πατρός, instead of μητρυιάν, to indicate that 
the father was still living (cf. 2 Cor. vii. 12). Ἔχειν may 
mean either marriag. (Origen) or concubinage, as in John 
iv. 18. The word ἔργον is not enough to prove that it was a 
marriage. It rather suggests that it was not. 


CHURCH DISCIPLINE.—V. 1-3. 123 


ὥστε, as well as ἥτις, follows τοιαύτη. 

V.2. <A side-glance at what he previously said of their 
being puffed up (iv. 18. Pride was at the root of their 
sensuality as well as of their dissensions. The word ὑμεῖς 
is emphatic: “ Whoever may indulge in pride, you, of all 
men, should be abashed.”? It is better to understand the 
ver. as a question, which is often introduced with καί, if it 
expresses what is inconsistent with a previous statement. 
When the καί stands at the beginning of the clause, the 
question is often either ironical (cf. Xen., Hiero ὃ 1 and § 15) 
or, as here, sad. Cf. Eur., Hecub. 883, καὶ πῶς γυναιξὶν. 
ἀρσένων ἔσται κράτος ; So Luke x. 29; xvii. 26. 

ἐπενθήσατε, “ mourned,” as for the dead. Theod., ἐθρηνή- 
agate (cf. 2 Cor. xii. 21). So Origen, C. Cels. III. p. 141, 
observes, ἀπολωλότας Kal τεθνηκότας τῷ Θεῷ τοὺς ἐτ᾽ ἀσελ- 
γείας ἤ τινος ἀτόπου νενικημένους ὡς νεκροὺς πένθουσιν. 
Clement of Rome, in evident allusion to this verse, commends 
the Corinthians that they did mourn for the sins of their 
neighbours (Ad Cor, 2). 

iva κ΄ τ... Hofmann makes the clause depend on ὁρᾶτε or 
βούλομαι understood, as in Mark v. 23. It is unnecessary. 
“Iva is partly telic, partly ecbatic. Their sorrow would have 
for its aim and result the guilty man’s excommunication, 

For ἐξαρθῇ 8 ABCD read ἀρθῇ. So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., 
Westc. and Hort. But all read ἐξάρατε in ver. 13, where see 
note. 

V. 3. ἐγὼ μέν. The emphasis on ἐγώ is enhanced by the 
μέν solitarium, which is almost equivalent to γέ, “at least,” 
certe, Cf. 1 Thess. 1. 18; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 413; 
Winer, Gr. ὃ LXIIT. e. 

ὡς before ἀπών is omitted in δὲ ABCD Vulg. and some of 
the Fathers, but De Wette, Maier, Hofmann retain it. Meyer 
thinks it crept in from ὡς παρών, which is improbable. Its 
insertion certainly seems to strengthen the expression: “as 
being (that is, in the character of one who is) at once absent 
in body and present in spirit.” The δέ would then be a 
copula. That the Apostle has passed judgment on the case 
resulted from his being absent in one way and present in 
another. But the MS. evidence against ὡς is too strong, and 
it is omitted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. The 


124 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


clause will then be an example of the omission of μέν, occa- 
sioned perhaps by the previous μέν, in the former of two 
antithetical clauses: ‘‘ absent indeed in body, but present in 
spirit.” 

τῷ πνεύματι. When πν. is contrasted, as here, with σῶμα, 
it is usually equivalent to ψυχή (cf. James ii. 26). But the 
Christian mv. is the ψυχή, not in the unity merely of self- 
consciousness, but as the dwelling-place of God’s Spirit (cf. 
Rom. vii. 10; Col. 11. 5). It is in virtue of the indwelling of 
the Spirit of God that the Apostle could assert his apostolical 
authority at any time or place. As with Christ, so with the 
Christian, there is a real presence other than that of the body. 
Church authority and the apostolic office are, not a garb put 
on or an external condition assumed, but a mode of the spirit’s 
inner life in so far as it is the abode of the Holy Spirit. 
Cf. Greg. Naz., Hp. 31, παρειμὶ πνευματικῶς. Hence crv. here 
does not mean “ solicitude”’ (Beza, Est., Cor. a Lap.) ; nor the 
Holy Ghost (Ambrosiast.), which is disproved by ἐμοῦ, ver. 4; 
nor the merely human ψυχή (Pfleiderer, Paulin. p. 65). On 
πνεῦμα generally cf. Usteri, Lehrb., Anhang I. 

ὡς παρών, “as though I were present in body.” Such was 
_ the power of the Spirit that the Apostle judged the case with 
as much certitude and authority as he would have done if he 
had been present in body. Distance neither blunted his sense 
of the heinousness of the sin nor weakened the force of his 
condemnation. On os, “as though,” cf. 2 Cor. x. 14, 

τὸν . . . κατεργασάμενον is accus. after κέκρικα, and 
τὸν τοιοῦτον is resumptive of τὸν κατεργασάμενον. To govern 
παραδοῦναι by κέκρικα weakens the meaning of κέκρικα: “1 
have decided to,” etc.—Ovtw τοῦτο is not synonymous with 
τὸ τοιοῦτον, “a deed of this kind”; οὕτω conveys the notion 
of his being a member of the Church. It is unnecessary to 
suppose it refers to aggravating circumstances known to the 
Corinthians, but unknown to us. 

V. 4, But this judgment of an individual, though an 
Apostle, was not authoritative, as an ecclesiastical act, without 
the sanction of the assembled Church. 

Σ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματ᾽ . . . ᾿[Ιησοῦ, “in the name of our Lord 

Jesus.” Χριστοῦ is omitted in ABD. C deficit. It was 
probably inserted by copyists to assimilate the clause to the 


CHURCH DISCIPLINE.—V. 4, 5. 125 


more usual formula. Origen (De Or. 31), Chrys., Theod., 
Theophyl., Beza, Grot., Olshaus., etc., join ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι. 
᾿Ιησοῦ to συναχθέντας, as in Matt. xviii. 20, where συνηγμένοι 
εἰς TO ὄνομα justifies σύναγειν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι. But, as παρα- 
δοῦναι is the leading idea of the verse, it is more probable 
that the Apostle is stating the authority on which this act 
rested (cf. 2 Thess. 111. 6). 

σὺν τῇ δυνάμε . . . “Incod. NABD Vulg. omit 
Χριστοῦ. The clause is better joined to συναχθέν των, because, 
first, as the words ἐν. . . ᾿Ιησοῦ have been joined to 
παραδοῦναι, the participial clause would otherwise be left with- 
out an adjunct and the verb would have two adjuncts almost 
equivalent in meaning; second, if the words are joined to 
παραδοῦναι, σύν must mean “ armed with the power of,” but 
it is very doubtful that σύν has this meaning in the New 
Test. ; cf. Grimm, Lee. s. vy. ‘he words will rather express 
the reason why the Apostle refers the question for settlement 
to the Church. The power of. Christ resides, not in any 
individual, but in the assembly of believers. De Wette well 
observes that the Apostle writes “in the republican spirit of 
early Christianity.” So also when the transgressor is par- 
doned, the Apostle declares his readiness to concur in the 
pardon granted by the Church. The punishment had been 
inflicted “by the greater number” (cf. 2 Cor. ii. 6,10). In 
Acts xv. 22, 23, “the whole Church” and “the brethren’’ 
are associated with the Apostles and elders in deliberation. 
Cf. Clem. Rom., Ad Cor. 44, συνευδοκάσης τῆς ἐκκλησίας 
πάσης, and 54, ποιῶ τὰ προστασσόμενα ὑπὸ τοῦ πλήθους. 
The nervous suspense of the whole passage arises from the 
Apostle’s reluctance to have recourse to the extreme act of 
Church discipline, and his anxiety to fortify himself in his 
present attitude with the authority of the Church and of Christ 
_ Himself. 

τῇ δυνάμει, not merely “with authority,” equivalent to τῇ 
ἐξουσίᾳ (Meyer), nor “the power of doing miracles ” (Osiand.), 
but, as in iv. 20, the spiritual force that makes all the acts of 
the Church effective and compels obedience. It is the power 
of the kingdom. 

V. 5, Hofmann joins παραδοῦναι with eis ὄλεθρον, Satan 
being the agent through whom God accomplishes the destruc- 


2 


126 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


tion. This makes τῷ Σ. dat. of the instrument, which the 
position of the words renders unnatural; and παραδοῦναι τῷ 
Σατανᾷ occurs without εἰς in 1 Tim. i. 20 (cf. Matt. v. 25). 

Tertullian (De Pudic. 20), Calvin, Beza, Cor. a Lap., Maier, 
etc., explain the words to mean simply excommunication. 
The world, outside the Church, is described as the power of 
the darkness and of Satan (Acts xxvi. 18; Col. i. 13). But 
the phrase “ delivering to Satan ” was not among the Jews an 
expression for the higher degree of excommunication. Origen 
(Hom. 14 in Lev.), Chrys. (on 1 Tim. i. 20), Theod., Theophyl., 
Ambrose (De Penit. I. 15), Augustine (De Serm. in Monte), 
Aquinas, Grotius, De Wette, Meyer, Alford, Heinrici, etc., 
maintain that the words mean bodily affliction. In favour of 
this view are the following considerations : (1) Satan was the 
cause of physical disease ee Luke viii. 2; xiii. 16; Heb. 11. 
14; 2 Cor. xii. 7). (2) Disease and even ἀβοίι were forms of 
punishment inflicted in the Apostle’s time on members of the 
Church (cf. xi. 80; Acts v.5; Rev. ii. 22). (3) There was 
an element in the incestuous man’s punishment that made it 
impossible for the Church alone, without the presence of the 
Apostle’s spirit, to inflict it, whereas the Church could have 
excommunicated him. (4) If the words mean only excom- 
munication, they are a rhetorical exaggeration. For it cannot 
be supposed that the offender’s expulsion involved his being 
abandoned to the spiritual domination of sin, inasmuch as the 
purpose of his chastisement was “the salvation of his spirit.” 
Tertullian and Ambrose err unquestionably in saying that he 
was delivered unto Satan “non in emendationem, sed in per- 
ditionem.”! (5) The moral influence of physical and mental 
suffering is acknowledged and experienced by the holiest men 
(cf. Ps. exix. 67); and even of Christ it is said (Heb. v. 8) that 
He learnt obedience through suffering. By bad men it is not 
seldom the only salutary influence profoundly felt. When its 
influence is the reverse of salutary, the soul is lost. 

Σατανᾶς. Whether the Iranian ideas with which the Jews 
came in contact during the exile first gave them the con- 
ception of Satan may fairly be doubted, though it must be 
admitted demonology plays a more conspicuous part in their 


1 Renan (Apotres p. 87) says that excommunication was regarded as equiva- 
lent to a sentence of death! 


CHURCH DISCIPLINE.—V. 5-7. 127 


religious history after the return from Babylon. The correct 
view seems to be that Christ and His Apostles combined the 
Zoroastrian doctrine of an antagonist of God with the early 
Hebrew doctrine of Satan’s inferiority to God (cf. Isa. xlv. 18). 
Our passage contains no reference to tho belief that the Pagan 
world, as distinguished from the Church, was under the 
dominion of demons. The δαιμονία, that is, the heathen gods, 
are not identified with Satan, the Sammael of the Hebrews. 

σαρκός. The distinction between σάρξ and πνεῦμα is not 
precisely the same as that between σῶμα and ψυχή. The 
σάρξ is the principle of sin as it actuates itself through the 
σῶμα, the members of the body being μέλη τῆς σαρκός. 
Hence the destruction of the σάρξ involves the salvation of 
the πνεῦμα, which the death of the body does not. As σάρξ 
has here an ethical meaning, so also has πνεῦμα. It is not 
“the psychological opposite of o@pma” (Pfleiderer, Paulin. 
p- 65). We mnst add the notion of the indwelling of the 
Holy Spirit, on which the salvation of the πνεῦμα depends. 
Similarly in Rom. vii. 10, 11 the life of the human spirit is 
connected with the indwelling of the Divine Spirit. The 
action of Satan is only destructive; but it is overruled by 
God to destroy the principle of sin. Salvation is the work of 
God. Finally, it is worthy of note that Satan is represented 
as acting from without, by the infliction of bodily suffering ; 
but the Spirit of God from within, by dwelling in the human 
spirit. 

ἡμέρᾳ. Cf. note oni. 8; 111. 13; iv. 5. 

V.6. καύχημα, “an object of boasting ;” not the inces- 
tuous person (Chrys., Hammond), but “this is the sort of 
thing you boast in.” In Phil. i. 26 καύχημα has passed over 
into the meaning of καύχησις. Cf. Clem. Rom., Ad Cor. 34. 

ζύμη (from ζέω, cf. ζῶμος ; Lat. jus; Eng. jwice), “ leaven.” 
Ambrosiast., Herv., Meyer, Hofm., Alford understand it to 
mean that toleration of sin robs the Church of its Christian 
character and implicates all in the sin of one. This is not the | 
meaning of the proverb elsewhere. Cf. Gal. v.9; and Wet- 
stein’s note for the Rabbinical use of it, and Lightfoot (Hor. 
Heb.) on Matt. xvi. 6. Chrys. correctly explains it here of 
the moral influence of a corrupt example. 

V.7%. The mention of leaven suggests to the Apostle a 


2) 


128 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


beautiful allegorical application of incidents connected with 
the paschal feast, a suggestion helped perhaps by the fact of 
his writing about Easter. 

ἐκκαθάρατε, “ purge out thoroughly ” (cf. ἀφανιεῖτε, Exod. 
xii. 15). The omission of οὖν (so A D Vulg.) makes the com- 
mand more urgent. The next verse shows that the leaven 
means wickedness. The Apostle is not, therefore, here 
speaking of the excommunication of the incestuous person, 
but passes to a more general statement. The epithet “ old” 
is not itself part of the allegory, but introduces into it the 
Pauline distinction of the “old” and the “new” (cf Rom. 
vil. 6; Eph. iv. 22, 24). Now that the Gospel has brought in 
“the power of an indestructible life,’ wickedness ought to be 
purged out, because it is in its very nature corruption. Yet, 
though it ever “ decayeth and waxeth old,” it is a leaven. 
The spirit, on the other hand, is not only καινόν, but also veov; 
not only a life, in opposition to death, but also recent, entering 
into the place hitherto occupied by corruption and death. 
The classical opposites are ἀρχαῖος and καινός (cf. 2 Cor. vy. 
17), παλαῖος and νεός. But it does not appear that the dis- 
tinction is always observed in the New Test. (cf. Matt. xiii. 
52; Rom. vii. 6). The sing. φύραμα is significant, denoting 
the oneness of the Church and the consequent danger of con- 
tamination from evil-doers. ) 

καθώς ἐστε ἄξυμοι. It is better not to understand ἄρτοι. 
Theod., Grot. explain it, “ abstaining from leavened bread,” as 
if it referred to their observing at the time the feast of pass- 
over. But (1) though ἄσιτος and ἄοινος are active, ἄζυμος is 
not. (2) There is no trace at this early period of a Christian 
feast at Haster, other than the weekly Eucharist. (3) To the 
Apostle the observance of a Jewish rite could be no reason 
for spiritual purity; indeed it would be contradicted by the 
argument that we ought to be pure because Christ is the true 
paschal lamb. Chrys., Theophyl., Est., Cor. a Lap., etce., 
think Christians are here designated “ unleavened,’’ because 
it became them to be pure, or because they would at last be 
pure. The Protestant Reformers and Neander understand it 
of forensic righteousness. (Melanchthon adds the beginnings 
of sanctification.) Wordsworth explains it of baptismal re- 
generation. It is one of those words, our interpretation of 


CHURCH DISCIPLINE.—V. 7. 129 


which will inevitably be coloured by our preconceived doc- 
trines. Laying aside every dogmatic expression, we may at 
least say that it refers to what the Christian is in idea, as 
distinguished from what he is actually. 

καὶ γὰρ... Χριστός “for our passover has been slain, 
even Christ.” Cf. HEur., 10 161, ἄλλος ἐρέσσει κύκνος, 
‘another bird comes, and that a swan.” So Heb. ii. 9, 
“and that one no other than Jesus;”’ Heb. iii. 1, “I mean 
Jesus.” The words ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν are omitted in NA BCD 
Vulg.; and are rejected by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., De Wette, 
Meyer, Reiche, Westc. and Hort. They are unnecessary. 
The notion is really included in ἡμῶν, and we must not, with 
Meyer and Reiche, say that it would be here inappropriate. 
In the fact that the paschal sacrifice has been offered for us 
lies the reason for our keeping the feast. Two grounds for 
purging out the old leaven of wickedness have been mentioned. 
The one is that it would leaven the whole lump. The other 15 
that the whole time of the Church is a paschal feast. Hence 
καί is “also,” not “ truly ;” and καὶ γάρ is equivalent to the 
more usual καὶ yap καί, as in 2 Cor. ii. 10 (cf. Fritzsche on 
Rom. xi. 1). So Plat., Rep. p. 468, καὶ yap Ὅμηρος. 

πάσχα, “the paschal lamb,” as in Mark xiv. 12; Luke 
xxii. 7. The word isemphatic. That Christ is our atonement 
is the foundation of holiness, a sufficient refutation of Hol- 
sten’s assertion (Zum Evang. d. Paulus, p. 43), that knowledge 
is the only fruit of his conversion acknowledged by St. Paul. 
The Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world has been 
slain, and the condition of the Christian Church is, therefore, 
that of men keeping the paschal feast. The notion of atone- 
ment lies not so clearly in the word ἐτύθη as in the idea of the. 
paschal lamb and the sprinkling of its blood, which things. 
constituted the passover a real sacrifice (cf. 2 Chron. xxx. 16; 
Exod. xii. 27; xxiii. 18). The view of Calov, Reuss and 
Hofmann (Schrijtb. II. p. 270, 2nd ed.) that it was only a 
sacrament would render tle Apostle’s use of it here an un- 
justifiable accommodation. Not the first passover only, but 
the annual commemorative celebration also was a sacrificial 
feast (cf. Exod. xxxiv. 25). To infer that the Apostle accepted 
the tradition that the crucifixion took place on the day before 
that on which the Jews kept the passover is to introduce into 

K. 


130 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the Apostle’s allegory a detail which is as unimportant as it is 
uncertain. 

V. 8. ὥστε ἑορτάξωμεν, “so then let us keep the feast,” 
that is of the spiritual passover. The Apostle is surely not 
urging the Corinthians to observe the Jewish passover (Lechler, 
Apost. Zeit. p. 850, ed. 1857; Hilgenfeld). Cf. Gal. iv. 9-11; 
Col. ii. 16. Ἅπας δὲ ὁ Bios αὐτοῦ [the true Gnostic] πανή- 
yupts ἅγια, says Clem, Al. (Strom. VIII. p. 860, Potter). Cf. 
Origen, 0. Cels. VIII. 22. But, while the reference is to the 
Christian’s life, the Apostle alludes especially to the Lord’s 
Supper—thus preparing his readers for what is to follow,— 
which commemorated at once the death and the resurrection 
of Christ. The transition from the command to purge out the 
old leaven to the thought of joy and thanksgiving for redemp- 
tion occasions the pleasant change from the imperat. to the 
subjunctive and the Apostle’s gladsome associating of himself 
with his readers. 

un... ἀληθείας. Mndé introduces not an additional 
thought, but the explanation of the allegorical expression, “old 
leaven.”” The view that by ‘old leaven,” the Apostle meant 
Judaism is absurd; for he has already described the Jewish 
passover as eaten with unleavened bread. Κακίας, etc., are 
‘genitives in apposition, ‘‘ the leaven which consists in,” ete. 

κακία and πονηρία are found together also in Rom. i. 29. 
‘The former means that which is in itself evil, the latter what 
as injurious to others. But either word may be used in the 
general sense of “ evil” (cf. Acts 111.26; viii. 22). The case of 
the incestuous man exemplified the twofold character of sin. 

εἰλικρινεία is derived in the Et. Magn. from πρὸς εἵλην 
κρίνεται, “ what is tested by being held up to the sun; ” by 
Alberti (notes to Hesych.) and Stallbaum from εἰλεῖν, “ what 
is tested by shaking;” by Bishop Lightfoot (on Phil. i. 10) 
‘from εἴλη, εἰληδόν, gregatim. It is distinguished from ἀλήθεια 
as “sincerity ” from “ truth.’ The former is the harmony of 
‘ur words and actions with our convictions, the latter the 
harmony of all these with reality. Similarly in 2 Cor. ii. 17, 
ἐξ εἰλικρινείας denotes the inner, ἐκ Θεοῦ the external 
source (cf. 1 John iii. 21). Ar7Aera sometimes means “ sin- 
cerity,” as in Clem. Rom., Ad Cor. 19, ἐν φόβῳ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. 
‘But not so here. In Corinth there was a marked absence of 


CHURCH DISCIPLINE.—V. 9-13. 131 


intellectual honesty and moral sincerity. “ Truth” does not 
here mean “true doctrine.” It is a moral quality, inasmuch 
as the harmony of our convictions with objective truth depends 
on the moral state of the soul. The converse of truth is self- 
deception. 

Vv. 9-13. He justifies the sharpness of his language. He 
has warned them before not to associate with wicked men, so 
that they cannot now plead the excuse of ignorance. But he 
explains more fully from the nature of the Church what that 
warning implies. It does not mean that Christians should 
withdraw from all secular dealings with bad men. That would 
be tantamount to the withdrawal from the world of the power 
of Christianity to leaven society and ever to create the Church 
out of the world. It means that the exercise of discipline 
should assume the form, first, of personal alienation; and, 
second, of the transgressor’s excommunication from Church 
fellowship. Expositors suppose the Corinthians misunderstood 
the Apostle’s former letter, and that this passage is a digres- 
sion intended to remove that erroneous impression. But it is 
not likely anybody could have imagined St. Paul of all men 
urging Christians to live in seclusion from the world. It is 
more natural to think that he wishes to explain his former 
words in order to apply to a particular instance his conception 
of the nature of Church discipline. 

V.9, ἔγραψα. Chrys., Theod., Theophyl., Cor. a Lap., 
Hammond, Wolf, Whitby, Middleton (Greek Article, p. 326 
Rose), Stanley, etc., understand this to be the epistolary aor., 
referring to the present Epistle, more especially verses 2, 6 
and 7, or (as Lardner thinks) what the Apostle subsequently 
writes. But the words ἐν τῇ ἐπιστολῇ seem as if they were 
added expressly to guard against this interpretation. The 
examples cited by Middleton of ἐπιστολή referring to the letter 
written at the time are not to the point; for in Rom. xvi. 22 ; 
Col. iv. 16; 1 Thess. v. 27; 2 Thess. iii. 14, the word is 
required to complete the sense (cf. Hilgenfeld, Hinleit. p. 260). 
Similarly St. John refers to an Epistle of his not now extant 
(8 John 9), not to mention Chrysostom’s supposition of an 
Epistle written by St. Paul to the Corinthians between our 
First and our Second Epistles, and the “ Hpistle from 
Laodicea ” (Col. iv. 16). 


132 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


V.10. The καί before οὐ is omitted in ABCD Vule. If 
we join the ov to πάντως the words will mean, “by no means 
did I intend that you should not associate,” etc. This makes 
οὐ πάντως equivalent to πάντως ov, which is very rarely the 
ease (cf. Grimm, Lez.). It also emphasizes the negation much 
too strongly for the Apostle’s purpose. We must, therefore, 
connect πάντως with μὴ συναναμίγνυσθαι understood ; thus: 
“ποῦ that I intended you should abstain altogether from all 
dealings with,” etc. 

ἢ . . . εἰδωλολάτραις. He adds two. other classes of 
wicked men, one class, however, falling into two divisions; 
for we must read καί (as in ABCD) between πλεονέκταις and 
ἅρπαξιν. So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. Hence 
the omission of the art. before ἅρπαξιν. Ustius remarks that 
the Apostle mentions those sins under which all sins can 
be comprehended. The fornicator sins against himself; the 
covetous man against his neighbour; the idolater against the 
majesty of God. But they are mentioned probably because 
they were the cardinal vices of the heathen world, especially 
Corinth, where religion itself combined sins of impurity, 
avarice, and idolatry. This is better than to suppose all these 
words denote impurity. Thus Stanley, Conyb. and Howson, 
etc.,render πλεον. by “ lascivious persons,” for which there is 
no foundation ; Hammond renders ἅρπ. by “ ravishers ;” and 
Stanley renders εἰδωλ. by “sensual men.” Πάλεον. is the man 
who takes by fraud; ἅρπ΄. the man who takes by violence. 

εἰδωλολάτραι, the earliest instance of the occurrence of the 
word. Cf, Trench, Study of Words, p. 180, 15th Ed. ' 

ὠφείλετε. SoN ABC Ὁ, adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., 
Westc. and Hort. But Meyer, De Wette, Alford prefer 
ὀφείλετε, as if wp. were the attempt of a copyist to correct the 
Greek. 

ἄρα differs from ody in marking the unexpected character 
of the inference. Cf. note on vii. 14; Gal. v. 11; Xen., Hell. 
VII. i, 82; Plat., Rep. p. 382, where a series of startling 
inferences respecting the gods are each introduced with dpa. 

κόσμος is explained by Calvin in an ethical sense; “I did 
not write to you to abstain from associating with the fornicators 
of this present, evil world, because you ought surely of your 
own accord to come out from among them.” Cf. Tert., Idol. 


CHURCH DISCIPLINE.—V. 10, 11, 133 


24. But ἐπεὶ dpa means, not “for surely,’”’ but “for in that 
case.” Besides, ape/Aete would then mean that it was their 
duty to withdraw from the intercourse and business of society, 
not that it was practically impossible in such a place as Corinth, 
this πόλις ἐπαφροδιοτάτη. The Apostle deprecates any in- 
tention to advise Christians, as a duty, to become recluses and 
anchorites. Chrysostom’s paraphrase (ἐπεὶ ἑτέραν οἰκουμένην 
ἔδεε ζητῆσαι), though adopted by Aquinas and modern ex- 
positors, does not give ὠφ. its proper force. Av is omitted 
almost always when the apodosis contains such words as ἔδει, 
ὥφειλον, καλὸν ἣν, ἐβουλόμην, ἠδυνάμην, espec. in the later 
prose and New Test. (cf. Matt. xxv. 27). 

V. 11, νυνὶ δέ, not the temporal, but the logical “ now,” as 
in vii. 14; xii. 13; Rom. 11]. 21; Heb. xi. 16. This word and 
repetition of ἔγραψα conveys a sharp censure, and tends to 
prove that the Corinthians had not misunderstood the Apostle’s 
former letter, | 

ἐὰν . . . πόρνος, “if any one having the name of a 
brother be.a fornicator.”’ Messmer and Kling point out the 
antithesis between what he is called and what he really is. 

μηδὲ συνεσθίειν, not a reference to the Agapé or to the Lord’s 
Supper merely (Hausrath), but to social intercourse. So Tert., 
De An. 3 (cf. Luke xv. 2; Gal. 11, 12). Eating together is 
a sign of friendliness; business transactions are not. If the 
reference is restricted to Church fellowship, the emphatic 
“not even”’ is out of place. It is true that μηδέ has also an 
adversative meaning, (“and not,” “ instead of,” ‘‘ on the con- 
trary; ’’ cf. Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 210). This cannot be the 
meaning here; for the emphatic position of τῷ τοιούτῳ shows 
that συνεσθίειν prolongs the uotion of συναναμέίγνυσθαι. Cf. 
Matt. xviii. 17; Rom. xvi. 17; 2 Thess. iii. 6; Tit. iii. 10. 

That an idolater should be in the Church seems strange. 
The reference cannot be to the weak brother, who still believed 
that a divine power is hid behind the idol; for the same 
Apostle bids the Romans receive such a one into friendship 
(Rom. xiv. 1). Neither does he mean the strong brother who 
despised the scruples of the weak and took part in idolatrous 
feasts ; for he did not believe in any divinity attaching to the 
idols and, consequently, did not worship them. The passage 
intimates that a hard and fast line was not always drawn 


134 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


between the heathen of religious feelings and the Christians. 
Men that still worshipped idols came into the Church as- 
sembhes, though unbaptized, in the same way as misers and 
revilers, if baptized, are to be found there still. The persecu- 
tions of later times widened the gulf between heathen piety 
and profession of Christianity. When the Church mounted 
the imperial throne, Constantine found it possible to preside 
unbaptized over an cecumenieal council. 

V.12. τί γάρ μοι x.7.r., “for what have I to do with 
judging those who are without?” Cf. Dem., In Aphob. 111. 
p. 855, τί τῷ νόμῳ καὶ τῇ βασάνῳ; So Mark i. 24; John ti. 4 
The καί before τοὺς ἔξω is omitted in 8 ABC. So Lachm., 
Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. Its omission renders it 
impossible to accept Ritckert’s view that the Apostle is deny- 
ing that he judged at all: “Those who are within you, not I, 
judge; those who are without God judges, not 1. We 
should also, in that case, expect μέν before ἔσω, the force of 
the οὐχί running on to xpéves. Rather the Apostle introduces 
the question that refers to himself in order to show, by his 
own example, that it is not a Christian’s duty to withdraw from 
the world. St. Paul was an apostle, no more a Pharisee; an 
evangelist, not a censor. Cf. John v. 45. 

V.13. In vi. 2 he says the time will come when the 
saints will judge not only those who are within, and not only 
individuals among those who are without, but the world as a 
system of evil, and even angels. At present they judge only 
brethren. Why this difference ? Their judgment of those who 
are within is disciplinary ; their judgment of the world will be 
punitive. In the latter case, therefore, exact justice must be 
meted out; in the former the purpose of the chastisement is 
to produce a salutary effect. For this reason it is that in God’s 
providential government discipline is delegated to fathers, but 
not the power of finally condemning or absolving, which God 
has kept in his own hands. In like manner the judgment of 
the Church is at present disciplinary, and moral influence is 
more to be sought in it than exact distributive justice. Again, 
the judgment of the Church is now formed in great measure 
through the religious feeling, on the ground of maxims that 
embody men’s best instincts, such as the rule to do unto others 
as we would have others do unto us. But the final award 


CHURCH DISCIPLINE.—V. 13. 135 


will be arrived at from a profound knowledge of the spiritual 
principles that guide the moral government of the Most High. 
In proportion as the Church becomes more holy, its judgment 
of men and of principles partakes more of the character of 
final awards. 

οὐχὶ... κρίνετε; “Is it not the fact that you also, like 
myself, judge only those who are within?” He appeals to 
their own consciousness of power to exercise discipline within 
the Church, and of feebleness, as yet, to judge the world. He 
has referred to himself as an example of a Christian who did 
not associate with the world. He now asks them if, as a fact, 
they did not know they had sufficient spiritual power to judge 
those who are within. The phrases οἱ ἔσω, οἱ ἔξω, transter 
to the language of the Church the Jewish idea of separation 
from the world,—an idea appropriated by Christ Himself. 
Cf. Mark iv. 11; Col. iv. 5; 1 Thess. iv. 12; 1 Tim. iii. 7; 
Rev. xxii. 15, where, however, the metaphor is, not that of a 
household, but that of a city, into which some men cannot 
enter through the gates. 

κρίνει, better here than κρινεῖ, which is adopted by Lachm., 
Tisch. So Vulg., judicabit. The future judgment of God at 
the last day is not thus contrasted with the judgment of the 
Church (ef. vi. 2). 

é€dpate. So ABCD, adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., 
Meyer, De Wette, Westc. and Hort. The reading καὶ ἐξαρεῖτε 
is probably an attempt to assimilate the Apostle’s expression to 
the words in Deut. xxiv. 7, καὶ ἐξαρεῖς, which he is undoubt- 
edly citing. But the aor. and tho omission of xa/ make this 
final command more abrupt and urgent : “‘ I wrote to this effect 
before ; I have now explained how and why it should be done : 
Doit.” Theod. excellently observes that the Apostle adds force 
to his command by using the very language of God’s law 
given through Moses. 

Tov πονηρόν, not Satan (so Calvin), but the incestuous 
person. In most passages the Heb. has the neut. But in 
Deut. xvii. 7, where the reference is to stoning the idolater, the 
LXX. has τὸν πονηρόν. Ἐϊξξάρατε looks back to ἀρθῇ, ver. 2. 
But it contains an allusion also to the contagion of the man’s 
evil example. For the compound ἐξαίρειν does not mean ‘ to 
remove,” except in the applied signification of removing a 


186 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


disease (cf. Hippocr., Tract. 765). Chrys. rightly understands 
it so here: ὡς ἐπὶ νόσου τινος καὶ λοιμοῦ. 

ἐξ ὑμῶν αὐτῶν, “from among yourselves.” The αὐτῶν is 
emphatic. If they spared him, they would be participating 
in his sin, 


2. Litigution before Heathen Judges. 
(vi. 1-11). 


The Apostle next applies his conception of the nature of the 
Church to censure the practice of instituting legal proceed- 
ings against Christian brethren before heathen tribunals. The 
point of his censure lies iu three things: first, that the Church 
permitted its members to go to law before heathen tribunals, 
aud did not decide by arbitration within the Church all dis- 
putes among brethren touching secular matters (vi. 1-6) ; 
second, that Christians should have such disputes and insist on 
their rights, instead of suffering wrong (vi. 7, 8); third, that 
the real cause of both these faults wad ‘thee ignorance of the 
nature of Christ’s kingdom and Church (vi. 9-11). The 
reader will perhaps be reminded of Plato’s description (Itep. 
p. 405) of a diseased State, in which the art of the lawyer 
gives itself airs and a man that actually prides himself on his 
liberal education has to go abroad for his justice because he 
thas none at home. 

Ch, VI. 1. τολμᾷ, “dare.” Bengel admirably: “ Grandi 
verbo notatur lesa majestas Christianorum.” It contains 
the gist of the Apostle’s argument, which is not, at pre- 
sent, that brotherly love and pity ought to restrain them. 
He has already set forth the greatness and power of the 
Church, and now asks if any of them dare affront the majesty 
of Christ who dwells therein. Hence audet (Vuly.) is better 
than the sustinet of Erasmus and Beza. 

πρᾶγμα, “a matter of dispute” (cf. Xen., Mem. II. ix. 1). 
Tov ἕτερον, “ the other party,” “his opponent.” Κρίνεσθαι, 
reflex. mid., “to go to law ” (cf. Matt. v. 40; Eccles. vi. 10). 
"Emi, “ Before the tribunal of,” corwm, arising from the notion 
of local nearness (cf. Acts xxv. 9,10). It is a class. usage, 
though not freq. in the best writers. 

τῶν ἀδίκων. It is doubtful that he purposely chooses an 


CHURCH DISCIPLINE.—VI. 1, 2. 187 


ethical designation, as if he wished to show the folly of seeking 
justice at the hands of the unjust. The Apostle had met with 
a notable exception in the gentle Gallio in Corinth itself. Oc 
ἄδικοι was equivalent to of ἁμαρτωλοί, the Jewish designation 
of the Gentiles, while the Jews applied to themselves the 
epithet of δικαιοί (cf. Wisd. xviii. 20). On the other hand, 
the Apostle calls Christians “holy,” to remind them of the 
sanctity and awe that pertains to those who have the mind of 
Christ, and therefore judge all things (cf. ii. 15). It is most 
probable that the Greek portion of the Corinthian Church 
were guilty of the practice, not the Jewish. The Greeks were 
proverbially litigious (φιλοδικοί). The Jews were in the habit 
of appointing arbiters from among themselves to settle dis- 
putes, if both parties were Jews, and their Roman conquerors 
connived at the system. Cf. Joseph., De Bello Jud. IV. 34; 
Origen, Hp. ad Afric. 14. Perhaps Acts xvii. 16 is an allusion 
to it. From the Jewish synedrion it passed into the Christian 
Church. Cf. the so called Epistle of Clement to James, 10, 
οἱ πρᾶγμα ἔχοντες, ἀδελφοί, ἐπὶ τῶν ἐξουσίων μὴ κρινέσθωσαν, 
ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν τῆς ἐκκλησίας πρεσβυτέρων συμβιβαζέσθωσαν. 
To this small beginning we must trace the authority acquired 
by the bishops, especially in the Latin Church, to settle 
disputes in ecclesiastical and even civil cases, which was in 
part recognized by a law of Valens, a.p. 376. An interesting 
account of the “tumultuous perplexities” of an episcopal 
magistrate is given by Augustine (De Op. Monach. 29). We 
may infer that the Apostle does not mean to say that civil 
disputes should be brought before the assembled Church, but 
that both parties should choose Christians as arbitrators and 
submit to their decisions, 

V. 2. ἢ (inserted from 8 A BC D) οὐκ οἴδατε, an interro- 
gative phrase introducing a statement that could not have 
been known except by revelation (cf. vv. 16, 19). 

κρινοῦσι. Chrys., Ambrosiast., Theod., Theophyl., Phot., 
Erasin., Musculus understand the judgment of the world by 
the saints to mean that their faith will condemn the unbelief 
of the world, as the Ninevites will rise in judgment against 
the generation that rejected Christ. But this would not 
prove that Christians are fit to judge matters in dispute in the 
Church. Lightfoov (Hor. Heb.) aud Vitringa (on Isa, xxxii. 18) 


138 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


consider the words to be a prediction of the worldly power of 
the Church, when the magistracies of the world would be in 
the hands of Christians, a prophecy that began to be fulfilled 
in the time of Constantine. What, then, is meant by judg- 
ig angels? Neander justly objects that the Apostolic age 
did not expect a time when the Church would wield the 
power of the State, but anticipated a continuous struggle to 
be ended only by the second coming of Christ (cf. Justin M., 
Dial. ὁ. Tryph. 89). Tertullian (Apol. 21) evidently believed 
that the Czesars, as the personification of the evil principle in 
the world, would never become Christians. Surely the mean- 
ing is that the saints will be associated with Christ in the act 
of judging the world at the last day (cf. iv. 5). This doctrine 
glimmered faintly to a prophet’s eyc and came as a message 
of consolation and hope in a time of national suffering and shame 
(cf. Dan. vii. 18, 22; Wisd. 111. 8). It is stated, within narrow 
limits, by Christ (Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 80), and emerges 
in the Apocalyptic visions (Rev. xx. 4). In the belief of the 
post-apostolic Church, the prerogative of being τοῦ Χριστοῦ 
mapespor . . . Kal μέτοχοι τῆς κρίσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ συνδικάζοντες 
αὐτῷ ([π5., H. Μ΄. ΝΊ. 42) was confined to martyrs. Tertullian 
(Apol. 39) has caught the spirit of the Apostle’s words. 

καί, introducing a question. Cf. note on v. ῶ. Ev, implying 
a judicial college, in consessu vestro. It will not be the irre- 
sponsible opinion of individuals, but the solemn sentence of 
assembled judges. Cf. Dem., Ol. 111. ὃ 10, νομοθέτας καθίσατε: 
ἐν δὲ τούτοις τοῖς νομοθέταις μὴ θῆσθε νόμον μηδένα. Ὑμῖν 
differs from οἱ ἅγιοι as the actual from the ideal. 

ὁ xoomos, not here the kingdom of sin, but the created 
universe. The contrast between coop. and xpit. ἐλάχιστα is 
that between the vastest and the smallest. . 

ἀνάξιοι. .. ἐλαχίστων. The usual meaning of κριτήριον 
is “a court of justice,’ and Chrys., Theophyl., Valcken., 
Olshaus. so understand it here: “ Ye are too noble to appear 
before these very small tribunals.” But, notwithstanding the 
occasional use of ἀνάξιος in class. Greek in the sense of nimis 
dignus (e.g. Soph., Gid. in Col. 1546, ἀνάξιαι δυστυχεῖν), the 
Apostle would probably have written ἀνάξια ὑμῶν ἐστι κρι- 
τήρια ἐλάχιστα. It is more natural to suppose that κριτήρια 
means, by an easy metonymy, the judgment of disputes: 


CHURCH DISCIPLINE.—VI. 2-4. 139 


* Are ye unworthy of sitting in judgment on the smallest 
matters ? ” 

V. 3. From the contrast between great matters and small 
he passes to the difference between the present life and the 
supernatural order of things: “If we judge angels, whose 
nature touches ours only in its higher part, and the conditions 
of whose moral status are in some respects essentially different 
from those under which we are placed, are we incompetent to 
judge those matters that touch us on the lower side of our 
nature, and often involve the consideration of no complex 
moral conditions.” Aquinas, Meyer, Alford, Hodge think the 
reference is to good angels. But, as there is no hint in 
Scripture that they will come to judgment, οὐκ οἴδατε would 
be out of place (cf. Jude 6). The thought that the saints will 
pass sentence of condemnation on fallen angels is but the 
complement of the doctrine taught by St. Paul that they 
here wrestle against principalities, powers, and _ spiritual 
wickedness in high places (Eph. vi. 12). The contest will end 
in the defeat of the evil spirits (cf. Luke x. 19, 20). The 
reference to bad angels is maintained by Tert. (De Cult. Fem. 
11), Chrys., Theod., Theophyl., Calvin, Est., Bengel, etc. 

μήτι ye, “not to mention,” quanto magis (Vulg.). 

βιωτικά, that is, ai βίου πραγματείαι (2 Tim. ii. 4) or ὁ 
Bios (Luke xv. 12), synon. with the class. βίου τροφή. Βιω- 
τικός first occurs in Aristotle, but in an active sense : ‘ capable 
of obtaining the means of living.” Polybius and Philo use it 
in the sense of “secular,” as here. But it has a depreciatory 
meaning. 

V. 4. «xadifere. The view that this is an assertion cannot 
be correct, because ἐών cannot be synon. with ὅτε or εἰ with 
indic. (“on those occasions on which”), Valla suggested 
that it is an interrogative and, therefore, that ἐξουθενημένους 
means the heathen. So Luther, Wolf, Olshaus., De Wette, 
Meyer, Maier, Neander, Heinrici, etc. The strongest argument 
in favour of this interpretation is that the Apostle in ver. 5 
seems to imply that the wise ought to be judges. But, (1) if 
καθίζετε is interrog., would ἐάν with subjunct. be used, and 
not ef with indic.? (2) Καθίζειν means not “ to appear before 
a tribunal,” but “to appoint as judges,” as in Dem., In. Mid. 
p- 585, ὁπόσους ἂν ἡ πόλις καθίσῃ. (3) Τοὺς ἐξουθενημένους 


140 TUE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


cannot mean merely “ those who have no authority ” (Olshaus.} 
Maier), but means “those who are despised,” as in i. 28, 
Was contempt of the heathen a fact in the Corinthian Church ? 
On the whole, it yields a more natural and certainly a more 
forcible meaning to consider καθίζετε imperat.: “In case you 
may at any future time have disputes pertaining to this life; 
appoint the despised ones of the Church to be your judges.” 
He is not justifying their contempt of brethren, but stating it, 
and, in stating it, really rebuking their pride. Meyer objects 
that the Apostle would then have written, τοὺς ἐξουθενημένους 
τοὺς ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ. But their being despised by the Church 
was more to the Apostle’s purpose than their being members; 
and Cajetan rightly altered the contemptibiles of the Vulg. into 
contemyptos. Whatever view we accept of the words, they 
imply that a standing presbytery had ‘no place as yet in the 
Corinthian Church. In the Clementines (see note on ver. 1) 
the enactment reads differently. 

V. 5. The Apostle has written ironically in ver. 4. He 
justifies himself by saying that he did it to make them 
wshamed. For surely they will not admit that they have no 
brother fit to arbitrate. 

οὕτως, not to be jvined to λέγω (Hofm.) ; nor having a cli- 
macteric meaning (Chrys.), for we should then expect an adj., 
as in Gal. i. 3; but inferential: “ So, it seems, I am to infer.’ 
Cf. Matt. xxvi. 40. 

Ἔνι. So δὲ Β Ὁ, adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Weste. 
and Hort. On ἔνε cf. Winer, Gr. § XIV. 8 6.; Lightfoot and 
Ellicott on Gal. iii. 28. At least, it is moré emphatic than 
ἔστιν : “So, then, there is no room among you for one wise 
man.” 

σοφός, “spiritually wise.” Vitringa (De Syn. p. 570) erro- 
neously supposes the Apostle means an official teacher, such 
as the president of a Jewish synagogue was. 

διακρῖναι... αὐτοῦ, “ to arbitrate between his brother and 
an opponent.” It is not a Hebraism for τῶν ἀδελφῶν (Maier) 
because of αὐτοῦ. Though incorrect, in occurs in LXX., Exod. 
xi. 7, etal. Αὐτοῦ is emphatic. 

V 6. ἀλλά introduces a sharp contrast. Hence the clause 
had better be regarded as an assertion, not a question. ‘I'he 
contrast is threefold: instead of displaying the moderation 


CHURCH DISCIPLINE.—VI. 6, 7. 141 


of wisdom, you wrangle brother against brother; instead of 
accepting arbitration, you go to law; instead of referring 
matters to brethren for decision, you bring complaints against 
brethren before heathen tribunals, 

καὶ τοῦτο, et quidem. The class. phrase is καὶ ταῦτα. Cf. 
Heb. xi. 12. 

ἀπίστων. As ἄδικοι is the designation of the heathen among 
the Jews, so ἄπιστοι is their name from a Christian point of 
view. ‘The distinctive characteristic of a Jew is legal right- 
eousness, that of a Christian faith. 

V. 7. ἤδη, “at once,” not here, however, temporal, but 
logical. ‘If it is a shame to go to law before unbelievers, then 
that at once implies that a litigious spirit generally is itself 
unchristian.” Hence ὅλως is “ generally,” that is, apart from 
contingent circumstances, such as that the appeal is to heathen 
judges. 

ἥττημα, first in LXX., Isa. xxxi. 7, “subjugation.” The 
Att. form 15 ἧττα. In the New Test. ἥττημα occurs only here, 
and in Rom. xi. 12, where it is the opp. of πληρῶμα and must 
mean either “diminution in number” or “rejection.” But 
both these meanings are two aspects of the same notion and 
do not involve the idea of moral depravity. In our passage 
Chrys. (apparently), Theod., Theophyl., Gicum., Calvin, Bengel, 
Neander, Olshausen, etc., explain it to mean sin; Vulg., 
delectum. But Maier, Meyer, De Wette, Osiand., Kling, 
Hofm., etc., think it means “loss,” though some of: them 
refer it to present disadvantages, others to loss of participation 
in Messiah’s kingdom. (1) It must have a pass. meaning ; 
and, if it has any moral reference, it must be to moral loss, 
not to moral depravity. Cf. Rom, xi. 12, where παράπτωμα 
denotes “ lapse,” and ἥττημα “ rejection,” the loss of what was 
once possessed. (2) ‘I'he notion of loss naturally prepares for 
ver. 9; a litigious spirit is an unjust spirit, and the unjust 
forfeit the kingdom. (8) -There may be also, as Messmer and 
Wordsworth surmise, a contrast intended between the fancied 
gain of going to law and the real loss involved in it; their 
πλεονέκτημα was ἃ ἥττημα. (4) NABC omit ἐν, and there- 
fore ὑμῖν will be a dat. incommodi, which is a natural con- 
struction only if ἥττημα means “loss.” But we ought not to 
restrict the reference to loss of participation in the future 


142 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Messianic kingdom. Loss of spirituality also results from an 
exacting and litigious spirit. 

κρίματα, more general than κριτήρια, and including private 
arbitration. 

ἀδικεῖσθε.. . . ἀποστερεῖσθε, “why do ye not suffer your- 
selves to be unjustly treated and defrauded?” For this use 
of the middle cf. Thuc. I. 120, μήτε τῷ ἡσυχίῳ τῆς εἰρήνης 
ἡδόμενον ἀδικεῖσθαι, “to brook injury,’—a passage, by the 
way, the seutiment of which is in direct contrast to that of. 
the Apostle’s words. Plato comes nearer, Crito 10, οὐδὲ 
ἀδικούμενον dpa ἀνταδικεῖν. 

ἀποστερεῖν is a specific form of ἀδικία, having reference 
mostly to property (cf. James v. 4). In Mark x. 19 μὴ 
ἀποστερήσῃς seems to be the form in which the Jews of our 
Lord’s time stated the tenth commandment, substituting the out- 
ward act of fraud for the inward coveting. In the commercial 
centre of Greece injustice would assume the form of fraud. 

V. 8. Not a continuation of the questions (Meyer). The 
emphatic ὑμεῖς shows that he starts anew with an assertion; 
and ἀλλά will then have its usual meaning after a question, 
“nay but,” as in ver. 6. ‘ You of all men doing injustice ! ” 

7, 9-11, Ἄδικοι connects these verses with ἀδικεῖτε in ver. 
8. But they have a wider range of meaning than as a reason 
why Christians should be just. They are an argument for 
Church discipline, and an additional statement respecting the 
nature of the Church. The Apostle, as we have seen, does not 
recognize a sharp boundary line between the present spiritual 
condition of the Church and that of the Messianic kingdom. 
The ethics of the kingdom yet to come determine the morals 
of the kingdom that now is. If wicked men will be excluded 
from the former, they cannot be left unchastised in the latter. 
For the presence and power of Christ is as real in the one as in 
the other. Itis true that the present is a state of trial and 
education, and that, consequently, Church discipline does not 
now involve the exclusion of all wrong-doers. But the presence 
of Christ endows the Church with an authority not less real 
nor less absolute in itself than that of the future kingdom. 
The ethical resemblance between the two is what the Apostle 
insists upon. 

V. 9. ἄδικοι, primarily to be understood in the special 


CHURCH DISCIPLINE.—VI. 9-11. 143 


sense of “unjust,’’ inasmuch as the word is suggested by 
ἀδικεῖτε, ver. 8. But the word has also a generic meaning 
here, which appears from the use of the subordinate negatives 
οὔτε. . . οὔτε. ‘ Unrighteousness ” is the fundamental idea 
of sin (cf. 1 John iii. 4). By omission of the art. before dduxoz, 
attention is drawn to the attribute of unrighteousness. 

Θεοῦ βασιλείαν. SoNABCD.. This reading brings into 
juxta-position the contrasted notions, ἄδικοι and Θεός. 

κληρονομήσουσι, a theocratic word, in allusion to the promise 
given to Abraham (cf. Gal. 111. 29). All believers are heirs ; 
but the heirs will be disinherited if they live in sin, and that 
because of the very nature of the inheritance (cf. Col.i. 12, 18). 
It was a widespread belief among the Jews that belief in One 
God secured a man from future punishment, however evil his 
life might be. ' 

πόρνοι, generic; μουχοί, specific, expressing the opp. of the 
κοίτη ἀμίαντος (Heb. xiii. 4). Cf. Theophyl. on Rom. i. 29, 
πᾶσαν ἁπλῶς τὴν ἀκαθαρσίαν τῷ τῆς πορνείας ὀνόματι 
περιέλαβεν. 

εἰδωλολάτραι. The mention of idolaters is suggested by 
the intimate connection existing at Corinth between the rites 
of the worshippers of Aphrodité and fornication. In Rom. i. 
25 the Apostle speaks of idolatry as constituting the punish- 
ment of sins of the flesh. 

μαλακοί, probably not “ persons living in self-indulgence” 
(Meyer), but specifically synon. with παιδικά, qui muliebria 
patiuntur, ἀρσενοκοῖται, synon. with παιδερασταί. Cf. Dion. 
Hal., An‘ig. VII. 2. 

V. 10. Comparing this with the enumeration of the works 
of the flesh in Gal. v. 19-21, we see that both series begin 
with sins of impurity. The transition is easy, in both passages, 
to the mention of idolatry. These and drunkenness were the 
universal sins of the pagan world, in polite Corinth no less 
than in half-civilized Galatia. In our passage “ calumny ” 
represeuts the many manifestations of hatred mentioned in the 
Epistle to the Galatians. For witchcraft, which would prevail 
in Galatia, covetousness is here substituted. 

V.11. The ethical aspect of the Church is exemplified in 
the actual change of moral character which the Corinthians 
themselves have undergone. 


144 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ταῦτα is not equivalent to τοιοῦτοι (Billr.) ; nor can tives be 
joined to ταῦτα as part of the predicate (‘and something of 
this kind ye were ’’) to soften the harshness of the expression 
(Valcken.), which would have been ταῦτά twa. Tuves limits 
the subject: “and these things ye were, some of you.” The 
neut. is often thus used to express contempt, especially after 
καί (cf. Rev. 11.2; Thuc. VI. 307, ὀλέγον ἣν τὸ πιστεῦον 
Ἑρμοκράτει). 

ἀλλ ἀπελούσασθε x.7.X. For this use of ἀλλά in a suc- 
cession of statements to emphasize a contrast between each 
and another that precedes them all cf. 2 Cor. vii. 11. Hence 
ἡγιάσθητε and ἐδικαιώθητε may be explanatory of ἀπελούσασθε. 
That they are so is probable: for (1) ἅπελ. is a figurative 
term, the others are not. (2) It is reflexive middle, implying 
that, while this washing was not their own act, it did not take 
place without an act of their own. It is therefore a reference 
to baptism (cf. Acts xxii.16). But baptism in the New Testa- 
ment represents two distinct blessings, forgiveness (Acts ii. 38) 
and renewal (Eph. v. 26). Cf. note on i. 14. But what is called 
forgiveness in reference to sins is called justification in refer- 
ence to the person of the believer; and sanctification is another 
name for renewal (cf. Heb. x. 10, 14; xiii. 12). In other words 
ἡγιάσθητε and ἐδικαιώθητε are explanatory of ἀπελούσασθε. 
Cf. Turretin, Instit. Theol., De Baptismo xiii. ; De Justificatione, 
Q. Il. xx. We must, therefore, reject the view of Aquinas, 
Grotius, Lipsius (Die Paulin. Rechtf. pp. 49, sqq.), Osiander, 
etc., that justification is here to be understood subjectively 
as synonymous with “sanctification.”! The objection that the 
Apostle ought to have named justification first is not of much 
weight. As he is contrasting the present moral condition of 
the Corinthians with their former life, he gives special promi- 
nence to sanctification. In fact he adds the reference to 
justification to show that their change of moral character was 
not a mere individual gift, but the result of that Divine 
economy of redemption which had given birth to the Church 
and will develope it into the Messianic kingdom. This is the 
reason why he speaks of those blessings as coming “in the 
name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” 


1 Roman Catholic expositors explain δικαίωσις of sanctification also in Rom. 
iv. 25, 


CHURCH DISCIPLINE.—VI. 12. 145 


The name of Christ is the source of Church authority. The 
Spirit is the power that renders the exercise of that authority 
effective. The Corinthians are now summoned to wield that 
authority in Church discipline which has been effectually 
directed towards them in their own justification and sanctifica- 
tion. 


B. Union wit Curist INCONSISTENT WITH A LIFE OF 
SENSUALITY. 
(vi. 12-20). 

It was a prevalent belief among the heathen at this time 
that fornication was no sin. At the Council of Jerusalem 
the Apostles thought it necessary to forbid fornication as a 
thing not indifferent (cf. Acts xv. 20). The Epistle to the 
Romans contains a distinct refutation of Antinomian teaching. 
The Apostle sets himself to show, from the new Christian 
standpoint, that there is an essential contrast between things 
in themselves indifferent and things in their very nature evil. 
The believer’s mystical union with Christ is consistent with 
the former, inconsistent with the latter. 

V.12. He begins with a broad, unqualified statement of 
Christian liberty: “ All actions are lawful to me.” It is put 
in the form of a maxim, as appears from the asyndeton and, 
as Bengel has observed, from the use of wor. Whether they 
are the words of the objector (Theod., Calvin) or not, the 
Apostle appropriates them to express his own doctrine. Some 
have thought he is speaking of objects, not of actions. But 
such a distinction is fanciful. Objects do not come into 
moral relation to us except through our action upon them. 
Besides συμφέρει must refer to actions. After stating the 
principle broadly, he limits its application on two sides: first, 
it must not be applied to the injury of ourselves or others ;. 
second, it must not be applied to its own destruction ; and both 
these are but two aspects of Christian utility. The Apostle 
does not formally state the other distinction, that of right and 
wrong. Not that he denied it. But we cannot well conceive 
his thinking it necessary to prevent a misunderstanding of his 
words on the subject, as a modern writer on ethics might. 

ἐξουσιασθήσομαι. Chrys. has not failed to remark the play 

L 


146 TUE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


on the words ἔξεστι and ἐξουσιασθήσομαι. “ All things are 
in my power, but I shall not be overpowered by anything.” 
Tf Meyer’s acute observation on οὐκ ἐγώ is too fanciful: 
“The subjection will not be on my side; the things will be 
subjected to me,” we may suppose the contrast to be between 
the Apostle and his readers: “ Whatever you may do, I will 
not,” etc. 

Vv. 13-20. He explains what he means by these two 
aspects of Christian utility, And, first, in vv. 13-17 he 
explains “expediency.” It consists not in the possession of 
external goods, but in the development of all the creature’s 
capacities and the realization of all possibilities. This, again, 
is secured by a Divine adaptation of one thing to another. 
What is contrary to that fitness is destructive of Christian 
expediency. This adaptation runs through all creation. For 
instance, food is adapted to the organs of digestion, and they 
in turn are adapted to receive and assimilate the food. Here 
we find adaptation in the lower sphere of perishable things. 
A higher example of it is to be seen in the relation between 
Christ and the body, an adaptation that leads up to the eternal 
life and development of the body through the power of God. 
Now fornication is destructive of the adaptation of the body 
for Christ, and fatal to the entrance of the body into the 
sphere of the spiritual. Second, in vv. 18-20 he explains the 
other aspect of Christian freedom. It must not be freedom 
to destroy freedom. The Christian must not be brought into 
‘subjection by anything. When he cannot resist, he must 
flee ; and such is the nature of fleshly lust that victory is ob- 
tained only by flight. If he is subjugated by this sin, he has 
enslaved his body. Let the Christian remember, rather than 
permit himself to be brought into subjection by lust, that he 
is already in subjection to Christ, who bought him and conse- 
‘erated his body to be a holy dwelling place of His Spirit, thus 
making His service the most perfect freedom and subjugation 
of the body the body’s most glorious exaltation. 

V.13. Cf. 1 Thess. v.22; Rom. vi. 19. This relation be- 
tween Christ and the body does not exist between Christ and 
mere matter as such, nor even between him and the body 
‘itself as a material substance. It exists between Christ and 

\ ‘the body so far as it is part of the believer’s personality. 


CHURCH DISCIPLINE.—vVI. 18-15. 147 


Hence the Apostle does not say “ meats for the body,” because 
he is speaking here of the fitness established between meats 
and the σάρξ, the material substance and the physical organs, 
which cannot inherit the kingdom of God (xv. 50). But he 
does say, “the body for the Lord,” because he now speaks of 
what is part of a human personality, to the full consciousness 
of which personality a@ man most of all rises when he is 
brought into union with Christ. 

V. 14, Chrys. erroneously makes gluttony and intemperance 
the object of καταργήσει, in accordance with the patristic 
doctrine of a material resurrection. The Apostle asserts that 
the material universe as such will be destroyed. Food and 
the physical organs will both perish for ever. But the body, 
the instrument of the soul and, equally with the soul, part of 
the man, is capable of undergoing a change from material to 
spiritual, from mortal to immortal. The body of our Lord 
underwent this change by His resurrection, which is here 
mentioned to show that Christ has been raised to lordship 
over the body, and is become the quickening Spirit that can 
change our bodies from material to spiritual. Cf. Rom. viii. 
ΤῈ xiv: 95. 2:Cor. iv. 14; 'Col..i, 18. 

For ἐξεγερεῖ, the reading of δὲ A C D, adopted by Lachm., 
Tisch., Treg., B reads ἐξήγειρε. The fut. seems to be required 
by the opposition of the word to κατάργησει. 

ἡμᾶς, “us,” Christians. He says nothing in this Epistle of 
the general resurrection of all men. 

αὐτοῦ, that is God. Cf. Matt. xxii. 29. 

V.15. The body is not only adapted for the Lord, but 
also united to the Lord. In the previous verses the Apostle 
represents the personality of the man as the link between 
Christ and the body. He now speaks of Christ Himself as 
being the unifying personality ; so that the believer’s body 
becomes ‘‘ members of Christ.” 

μέλη. Neander and Meyer suppose the figure to be that 
of the head and the members, as in Eph. iv. 16. This is 
inadmissible here, because it destroys the analogy between 
μέλη Χριστοῦ and μέλη πόρνης. Rather, Christ is represented 
as the new, supernatural personality with which the believer 
is endowed. Cf. Gal. ii. 20. 

ἄρας, not “take,” as if expressing intention (Cor. a Lap., 


~~ 


A 


i43 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Est., Messmer, Webst. and Wilkins.), which would be λαβών, 
but “ take away,” so that they cease to be members of Christ 
(cf. John xvii. 15). The point of the Apostle’s question hes 
in the impossibility of the body being member of Christ, if it 
is made the member of a harlot (cf. Aug., De Civ. Dei, XXI. 
25). Aipw expresses also the voluntariness and determined 
character of the act (cf. Soph., Gd. Tyr. 1270, ἄρας ἔπαισεν 
ἄρθρα τῶν αὑτοῦ κύκλων). He does it in spite of his higher 
nature, like Leontius, διελκύσας τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς (Plat., Hep. 
IV. p. 440). The same notion lurks also in ποιήσω: “ Shall I 
make them by my own deliberate act?” 

ποιήσω may be deliber. subjunct. (“am I to,” etc), or, what 
is more probable, fut. indic. (‘ will it ever come to pass that,” 
etc.). Of. Luke xi. 5, the fut. implying that such importunity 
is not likely to happen. 

πόρνης μέλη. He means that the union of man and woman 
confers upon both, in accordance with the original decree of 
God at man’s creation, a double personality. The roots of the 
union, whether in or out of wedlock, live and grow necessarily 
in the personality of each. Fornication is the forming of this 
union in an immoral way; that is, in contravention of the 
Creator’s decree of monogamy. Because it is a sin that 
affects the man’s own personality, it destroys the holy, super- 
natural union between him and Christ. 

Baur (Theol. Jahrb. 1852, pp. 18 sqq.) endeavours to show 
that the Apostle’s reasoning involves a petitio principti, be- 
cause he proves the sinfulness of fornication by assuming 
that it is immoral to make the members of Christ the members 
of a harlot. The Apostle does not seek to prove the sinfulness 
of fornication. He assumes it. Has he not already said 
(vi. 9) that it excludes men from the kingdom of God? His 
purpose is to introduce a new reason, applicable to Christians 
only, for purity. Indeed it is only on the assumption of the 
sinfulness of fornication that the argument escapes being a 
non sequitur. Marriage, being a holy union, does not involve 
the taking away the members of Christ. Fornication, being 
an unholy union that does involve it, ought, for that reason 
also, to be shunned by Christians. 

V.16, κολλᾶσθαι, akin to Eng. glue, and denoting a most 
intimate union (cf. Luke x. 11). τῇ πόρνῃ, “ his harlot.” 


CHURCH DISCIPLINE.—VI. 15-18. 149 


σῶμα denotes not merely a physical organism, but a com- 
plex personality on its lower plane. In this citation σάρξ must 
have the same meaning, by synecdoche, and not signify the 
mere material substance of the body. So basar in the Old 
Test. is used for “ body ”’ as well as for “ flesh.” Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 
10, 11. Melanchthon explains the words in Genesis to refer 
to the anion between Christ and the believer, because of the 
apparent difficulty to apply to fornication words that originally 
referred to marriage. The γάρ and the δέ render this view 
inadmissible. 

φησίν, sc.6 Θεός, as in Rom. ix. 15. Cf. Matt. xix. 4, 5, 
where ὁ ποίησας supplies a nom. to εἶπεν. Similarly in Philo 
and Barnabas φησί introduces citations from Scripture. 

οἱ δύο. He cites from LXX., Gen. ii. 24. So Matt. xix. 5; 
Eph. v. 81. The words οἱ δύο are wanting in the Hebrew. 
Their omission does not affect the argument. 

V.17. Here again xodXr. is mid., “ he who cleaveth to the 
Lord,” expressing the believer’s act of self-consecration and 
faith, resulting in union with Christ. He is really exhorting 
them to unite themselves to Christ. Cf. Deut. x. 20; 2 Kings 
xviii. 6; Herm. Past., Sim. viii. 8, μὴ κολλώμενοι τοῖς ἁγίοις. 
The κόλλησις is what grammarians call σχετικὴ, that is, it 
here expresses consent of will. 

πνεῦμα, denoting a complex personality on the higher plane. 
This union is not in the sphere of the natural, but in that of 
the supernatural and spiritual. It is observable that the words 
* of his flesh and of his bones ” are to be omitted in Eph. v. 31. 

V.18. Other vices are overcome by resistance (cf. Eph. vi. 
13; James iv. 7). The imagination detracts from the fascina- 
tion of other sins, but adds fuel to the flame of fleshly lusts. 
The opposite of φεύγειν is κολλᾶσθαι. Cf. Ambrose on this 
ver. (De Fugaé Sac. IV.), whose words sound like a reminis- 
cence of Plat., Rep. p. 329, “I have fled from lust, as if I 
were fleeing from a savage and fierce master.” Perhaps the 
close connection in Corinth between impurity and idolatry 
caused the Apostle to give the same warning in reference to 
idolatry also (cf. x. 14). 

ἁμάρτημα, “a sinful act” ; ἁμαρτία may be either the prin- 
ciple or the act. 

ὃ ἐάν, “ whatsoever.” On the use of ἐάν for av cf. Winer, 


150 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Gr. § XLIT. 6; Buttmann, N.S: p. 63. It is put for ἄν only 
in relative clauses with the subjunctive, and that not in class. 
authors (cf. Matt. xvi. 19). 

els TO ἴδιον σῶμα. Elis may mean “ against,” as in Luke 
xv. 18, or “towards,” denoting the object affected, as in 
πλουτεῖν εἰς Θεόν. Cf. Plat., Rep. p. 896, ἁμαρτάνουσιν εἰς 
αὑτούς τε καὶ εἰς ἄλλους. The meaning is that fornication 
institutes a relation which affects the sinner’s personality. 
Σῶμα has the same meaning as in ver. 16. Some explain it 
of the harlot’s body ; De Wetto thinks it is the language of 
exaggeration ; Calvin, that it is spoken relatively ; Meyer and 
Osiander suppose the meaning to be that the bodily frame is 
the immediate organ and object of the sin. But why, if 
two sins, drunkenness and fornication, equally affect the body, 
is the latter the more heinous because no external agent is 
employed ? 

V.19. The connection is that, while they ought not to 
permit themselves to be brought under the power of anything, 
they should remember, on the other hand, that they have been 
brought into subjection to Christ through purchase, and that, 
consequently, their bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit. 

copa. SoNABCD. Vulg. has membra vestra. The use 
of the sing. σῶμα for the plur. (“your bodies”) occurs in 
class. prose, once at least, in Plat., Mene. p. 249. 

ναός. ‘The indwelling of the Spirit confers a sacredness on 
the body. Fornication is sacrilege, and defiles the shrine of 
God. ‘Ayiov is emphatic. The Apostle alludes indirectly to 
the contrast between the dwelling-place of a holy God and the 
temples of heathen deities, in some of which fornication itself 
became a sacred rite. No wonder he refuses them the name 
of temple (cf. note on viii. 10). The difference is noteworthy 
between the Apostle’s declaration that the body is the shrine 
of the Holy Spirit and the philosopher’s description of it as a 
prison anda tomb. Cf. Plat., Phaed. 63 (referred to by Tert., 
De An. 58) ; Gorg. 493, τὸ μὲν σῶμά ἐστιν ἡμῖν σῆμα. 

ἔχετε. The indwelling of the Spirit was a fact, then true of 
them (cf. Gal. iv. 6). Jovinian adduced the words to prove 
that marriage is not necessarily sinful. Jerome (Adv. Jovin. 
II. 29) replies that there are many chambers in a temple, all 
of which are not equally the abode of Deity. The word vaos 


CHURCH DISCIPLINE.—VI. 18-20. 151 


( shrine,” not ἱερόν) refutes the reply. It refutes also the 
view of Baur, Holsten, and Pfleiderer, that the Apostle taught 
that the body is essentially sinful (cf. 2 Cor. vii. 1). 

ἐστε, depending on ὅτι. ‘They were Chirist’s. But the 
Apostle does not say so. He leaves it to the witness of the 
Spirit to declare whose they were. Cf. vii. 21, 22; Gal. iii. 
13; iv. 5; Tit. ii. 14; 2 Pet. ii. 1, where δεσπότης expresses 
the property Christ had in them by purchase. In Acts xx. 2% 
the purchaser is God, unless we read Κυρίου, with Lachm. 
and Tisch. 

V. 20. ἠγοράσθητε, aor., referring to Christ’s death (cf. 
Tert., Ad Uxor. II. 8). 

τιμῆς. The price or ransom (λύτρον) which Christ, their 
purchaser, paid for their redemption from slavery was His own 
soul (Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45), or His own blood (cf. Eph. 
1.7; 1 Pet.1.19; Rev. v. 9). Now tothe mind of a man whose 
religious life has been that of a pious Israelite, the conception 
of deliverance through blood must mean that the idea of 
redemption passes over into that of propitiation. The blood is 
necessarily the blood of a sacrifice. It is this new conception 
of an atonement that connects the redemption from slavery 
with the indwelling of the Spirit. The great dogmatic passage 
in Gal. iv. 4-7 teaches that the purpose of redemption, which 
consists in deliverance, is to bestow the positive blessing of 
adoption, which is the highest form of reconciliation, and that 
the result of adoption is “ that God hath sent the Spirit of His 
Son into your hearts.” The Vulg. has pretio magno. It is a 
correct paraphrase. The point, however, is that the trans- 
action was not a nominal but a genuine purchase. Cf. Tert., 
De Cor. 13, “ et quidem magno.” 

δοξάσατε δή. The urgency of a command is often expressed 
by δή (cf. Luke ii. 16). The aor. also helps: “ Do it, I say, 
at once.” The positive idea of glorifying God takes the place 
of the negative warning to flee from sin; because, whereas 
union with Christ is the source of the body’s sacredness, it is 
the indwelling of the Spirit that imparts to the believer all 
actual grace for well-doing. Nearly all the Latin fathers and 
the Vulg. have “ clarificate et portate (or tollite) Dewm,” as if 
ἄρατε or βαστάζετε were in the text. Chrys. (Hom. 4 in 
1 Tim.) has δοξάσωμεν τοίνυν τὸν Θεόν, ἄρωμεν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ 


152 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


σώματι ἡμῶν. With this exception the realing seems to be 
unknown to the Greek Fathers. 

ἐν, “in’’ the temple of your body, in el oe to ver. 19. 
The body of the believer, as it circumscribes his personality, 
is the sphere within which he glorifies God. 

The words καὶ ἐν τῷ πνεύματι ὑμῶν, ἅτινά ἐστι τοῦ Θεοῦ, 
are omitted in 8 ABCD, Vulg., in some of the Greek aud all 
the Latin Fathers, but read by the two Syriac translators, by 
Chrys., Theod., etc. Most editors now follow Mill in rejecting 
them. They enfeeble the sententious strength of the conclud- 
ing exhortation. For σῶμα means, throughout, not a mere 
physical organism, but the man’s personality in its lower and 
more external aspects (cf. Rom. xii. 1). In both passages the 
Apostle means that, in order to glorify God, religion must pass 
out of the sphere of thought and emotion into action. 


Additional Note on Vv. 16, 17. 


The “‘ decay in verbal significance ” (Rutherford’s Babrius, 
p- lx.), that is, the tendency to use vivid words in a less intense 
and incisive meaning than former usage warranted, observable 
in debased Greek, had not set in when the Apostle wrote. In 
later writers κολλᾶσθαι signifies no more than “‘to be attached” 
toa person. In our passage it expresses the formation of a 
mystical union. 


THIRD DIVISION, 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY. 
(vii. 1-40). 


Tue Apostle passes from the complaints that reached him 
from other quarters to answer various questions contained in 
the letter of the Corinthian Church. He begins with the 
subject of marriage, perhaps because it is closely connected 
with the previous warning against fornication. 

The doctrine that Christians ought to abstain from marriage 
has been ascribed by one or another expositor to three out of 
the four parties that divided the Church. Olshausen, Haus- 
rath (Der Ap. Paulus, p. 389), etc., find an ascetic tendency 
in the Clrist-party; Olshausen because he thinks they were 
idealists, Hausrath because he supposes they imitated Christ’s 
abstention ; and certainly Clement of Alexandria (Strom. III. 
p- 533 Potter) refers to certain persons who boasted that, in 
abstaining from marriage, they followed the Lord’s example. 
Schwegler (Nachap. Zeit. 1. p. 163) detects asceticism in the 
Petrine party and traces it to the influence of Hbionitism, 
which indeed was, not improbably, another name for Jewish 
Christianity (cf. Origen, OC. Cels. II. 1). But the opinion that 
the Ebionites advocated celibacy rests on the sole testimony 
of Epiphanius, Her. XXX. ii. 5.1 At least, if they abjured 
marriage, it is unlikely they would profess themselves followers 
of Cephas. Neander, Ribiger, Meyer, Osiander, Maier, Stanley, 
etc., think the question respecting marriage originated with 
the Pauline party, who are supposed to have drawn an un- 
warrantable conclusion from the Apostle’s celibacy. But all 
these conjectures (for they are little more) rest on too con- 


1 Neander (Church History, I. Sect. iv.) discerns in Ebionitism a reaction 
even of the original Hebraism in favour of marriage. 
153 


154 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


tracted a view of the influence of the ascetic spirit in the 
Apostolic age. Asceticism was one of the undefined impulses 
of the time, which Christianity had to take into account, but 
did not create. Christ assumes its existence among the men 
whom He warns not to be as the hypocrites are. Cf. Matt. vi. 
16; and xix. 12 implies that already men were waiting for 
the kingdom and bringing the body into subjection for its 
sake. The tendency of the ancient Jewish religion had been 
to extol marriage. But after the return from Babylon the 
ascetic spirit manifests itself, and gathers strength with the 
breaking up of the national independence and exclusiveness. 
Perhaps the vigorous language of the 127th Psalm, ‘written 
after the exile, conveys the remonstrance of the old religion 
against the growing asceticism of the age. In course of 
time ascetic pietism degenerated into a hypocritical Pharisaism 
or assumed an increasingly vigorous form in Essenism (ef. 
Joseph., Hist. Jud. II. viii. 2, et al.; Pliny, Hist. Nat. V. 
17).1 In early Christian writers the morality of marriage 
appears to be well nigh the only casuistical question which all 
discuss. Certainly they were not led to assign so important 
a place to it in their thoughts and exhortations from any 
Special prominence it assumes in the New Testament. On 
the contrary, they are continually adjusting the statements of 
Scripture in accordance with their own preconceived notions, 
It is a curious fact also that asceticism appears in a more 
pronounced form among the heretical sects (cf. Tert., 0. Mare. 
J. 29). For instance, Tatian the Syrian and the Gnostics 
repudiated marriage; and the Montanists considered it an 
evil, though necessary. But even the orthodox betray an 
admiration for celibacy. Clement of Alexandria, though he 
combats the ascetic spirit, speaks of virginity as the more 
excellent way. Athenayoras (Apol. 33) praises those Christ- 
ians who had grown old in the unmarried state, hoping to 
attain thereby closer communion with Gud. Methodius wrote 


'1 Reference to the so-called Therapeute of Egypt in this connection must 
now be omitted, since Lucius of Strasburg (in his Die 1 herapeuten, etc., 1879) 
has convinced such competent critics as E. Schiirer, Hilgenfeld, and Kiinen 
that the treatise De Vita « onremplutivd, previously ascribed to Philo, in which 
alone we have an account of the Therapeute, is a Christian torgery of the 
fourth century. 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VII. 1. 155 


a dialogue in praise of virginity. The early Fathers generally 
condemned marriage if entered into for any other purpose 
than the procreation of children; and in this they were more 
ascetic than the dogmatic writers of the fourth and fifth 
centuries, when asceticism had struck its roots deep in the 
moral sentiment of the Church. 

We infer that the Apostle in this chapter discusses, not an 
isolated question, but a wide-spread and prominent tendency 
of the age, not originating always in a definite theory, much 
less occasioned by separate instances of celibacy, but present- 
ing to Christianity a great moral force which it must either 
subdue or assimilate, and undoubtedly to be connected with 
the doctrine that all contact with matter was esseutially evil. 

The Chapter may be divided thus: (1) A general statement 
(vv. 1-7). (2) The case of a Christian who has not been 
married or is in a state of widowhood (vv. 8,9). (3) The case 
of a Christian married to a Christian (vv. 10, 11). (4) The 
case of a Christian married to an unbeliever that is willing 
to cohabit with the believer (vv. 12-14). (5) The case of a 
Christian married to an unbeliever that refuses to cohabit with 
the believer (vv. 15,16). (6) A digression in reference to cir- 
cumcision and slavery (vv. 17-24). (7) The case of virgins 
(vv. 25-33). (8) The case of widows (vv. 39, 40). 


(1) A general Statement. 
(vii. 1-7). 

Ch. VII. 1. δέ, not only transitional but also slightly 
adversative; what the Apostle says concerning marriage 
standing in a relation of contrast to what he has said respect- 
ing fornication. 

περὶ ὧν, i.e. περὶ ἐκείνων περὶ ὧν. 

ἐγράψατε. No trace of their letter occurs except in the 
Apostle’s reply. But we may infer from the plur. here that 
it was written in the name of the whole Church. It is also 
evident that the Apostle’s deliverances on casuistical questions 
were incidental, as circumstances brought them to the surface, 
and that they formed no part of the Gospel which he preached 
as the divine power and wisdom. 

ἅπτεσθαι, a euphemism ; not synonymous with γαμεῖν. ΟΥ̓, 


156 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Gen. xx. 4, 6; Plat., Laws, p. 840 A; espec. Clem. Al., 
Peedag. p. 224 Potter. The expression is used because the 
question was prompted by an ascetic sentiment that marriage 
was defiling (ἀκάθαρτον). Cf. Lev. xi. 8; Col. ii. 21. But 
Jerome’s explanation that the word is used to show the danger 
of the slightest approach would require μηδέ. The omission 
of μέν renders it probable that the clause καλὸν «.7.r. is 
explanatory of ἃ ἐγράψατε (Musculus, Ribiger). The clause 
is not the enunciation of an independent axiom (Meyer), inas- 
much as the Apostle is replying to a question. His answer 
necessarily assumes the form of an admission, on the one hand, 
and a limitation of that admission, on the other. 

καλόν. Jerome (Adv. Jovin. I. 7), who is followed by 
Kistius and Cor. a Lap., considers the meaning to be that 
celibacy is a moral and spiritual good, marriage an evil, not 
indeed sinful in itself, but inevitably accompanied by sin in 
this state of corruption, and permitted “ ne malo quid deterius 
fiat.” That καλόν sometimes approximates to the meaning 
of ἀγαθόν must be admitted (cf. Rom. vii. 18, 19). But how, 
then, can the Apostle call marriage in ver. 7 a divine χάρισμα, 
or describe it in Eph. v. 31, 32 as acquiring a mystical mean- 
ing, or the Hebrew Christians be exhorted to hold their 
marriage in honour and not be led by Essenians to disparage 
it? On the other hand, many Protestant expositors assign to 
the word the meaning of “expedient under present circum- 
stances,” as in ver. 26. Cf. Matt. xvii. 4; xvili. 8, where 
καλόν is synonymous with συμφέρει of Matt. v. 29. We 
must bear in mind that the Apostle is discussing a great 
ascetic principle. Is it likely he would begin with advising 
his readers to abstain from marriage from prudential motives 
in hard times? And if, in saying that a widow is more 
blessed by remaining a widow, he means only that she is more 
prudent, why should he close his argument with declaring 
that he was guided by the Spirit of God? Καλόν differs 
from συμφέρει in containing the notion of mental satisfaction, 
—such gratification, for instance, as that which is felt in con- 
templating a beautiful scene or an act of self-sacrifice. Con- 
sidered in its idea, marriage has an honour conferred upon it 
which is denied to celibacy. For it is a type of the union 
between Christ and the Church and from that union derives 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VII. 1, 2. 157 


its own holy character. But, considered in its several acts 
and accompaniments, marriage is inferior to celibacy. The 
unmarried are, like the angels of God, freed from the earthly 
side of what, in its higher aspects, bears an analogy to the 
life of the Son of God, in whose union with the Church the 
conception of marriage is realized without the dross of earth. 
We must add, therefore, the notion of the morally beautiful 
to the notion of expediency before our interpretation will 
satisfy the Apostle’s words. He is exhorting his readers to 
win for themselves the comeliness of undistracted and entire 
service. Abstention from marriage and, by mutual consent 
for a time, in marriage will give leisure for special seasons of 
prayer, deepen the Christian’s solicitude for the things of the 
Lord, and create a more complete consecration in body as well 
as spirit. Whatever furthers this is καλόν. , 

V. 2. Limitation (δέ, cf. note on ii. 6) of the general state- 
ment that celibacy is good. 

διά with accus. denotes cause (“owing to”). Whether it 
can also express purpose (“for the sake of’’) is doubtful. 
Kriiger (Gr. II. p. 294) and Winer (Gr. ὃ XLIX.c and Moulton’s 
note) deny it. The few examples given by Shilleto (Dem., De 
Falsd Leg. § 291) and Jelf (Gr. ὃ 627. 3 a) are from Thucydides 
or in pronominal phrases, such as διὰ τί; Here, at least, the 
art. points out the meaning. The fornications then abounding 
in Corinth were a reason why Christians should marry, if they 
were in danger of contamination. 

πορνείας. The use of the plur. of abstract nouns to denote 
the various acts in which an abstract quality manifests itself is 
a frequent Hebraism in LXX. (cf. Isa. Ixiii. 15). But it is also 
a classical usage. Cf. Heinichen’s exhaustive note to Eus., 
H. I. VIII. 6; Fritzsche on Rom. xii. 4; Bernhardy, W. 8. 
pp. 62-64. So Matt. xv. 19. Paraphrase: “ But owing to 
the prevailing fornication of all kinds.” 

ἐχέτω. The imperat. is sometimes permissive in the New 
Test., though not so often as grammarians say. But here Calvin 
and Meyer rightly consider it to be jussive. The absence of 
a connecting particle makes ἀποδιδότω and μὴ ἀποστερεῖτε 
(vv. 8, 5) explanatory of ἐχέτω. As they are jussive, so must 
it also be. Besides, the prevalence of fornication in Corinth 
is a reason, not merely for permitting marriage, but also for 


158 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


making it incumbent on all that have not the gift of con- 
tinence. The Apostle does not, therefore, prohibit all con- 
tinent persons to marry. Origen (Cat.), Jerome (Adv. Jovin. 
I. 4), Riickert, Kling think the Apostle is speaking of those 
who are already married. But ἔχειν does not mean “to 
retain” (so Semler), as if synonymous with κατέχειν, not even 
in 1 Tim. i. 19; 2 Tim. i. 13. It means ‘‘ to have a wife,” as 
in Thue. II. 29, οὗ εἶχε τὴν ἀδελφήν, and Mark vi. 18. 

ἴδιον, implying that the wife is to have a husband who is 
to be her own and no other woman’s husband. He does not 
say also τὴν ἔδιαν γυναῖκα because a warning against polyandry 
was not present to his mind. In Greece the only approach to 
it was in Sparta. When Theodoret (Grec. Aff. Cur. p. 183) 
contrasts the Apostle’s doctrine on this point with Plato’s 
community of wives, which involved polyandry as well as 
polygamy, he uses ἔδιος of husband and wife. ἔϊδιος is not 
redundant, not even in Wisd. x. 1. 

V.3. For ὀφειλομένην εὔνοιαν 8A BC D Vulg., Clem. Al. 
(Strom. III. Ὁ. 555, Potter), Orig. (Cat. ; De Or. 17), Tert. 
(De Pudic. 16), ete., read ὀφειλήν, which Hrasm. actually con- 
jectured from the debitum of the Vulg. The longer reading 
may have been a euphemistic gloss or had an ascetic origin (so 
-Neander), thus making the Apostle’s words mean that, though 
cohabitation may cease from ascetic motives, kindness is still 
due to the wife. But ‘the debt” strictly means cohabitation. 
The ascetic feeling that prompted to celibacy would also lead 
to abstention from cohabitation on the part of those who were 
married, 

V.4. He proves that cohabitation is the due of husband 
and wife. Each is the other’s possession. The fundamental 
ground of the Apostle’s conception of marriage is to be found 
in the union that forms of husband and wife one complex 
personality. The revelation of the union between Christ and 
the Church has restored the conception of marriage which 
God sanctioned before man’s fall, that husband and wife are 
one flesh (cf. Matt. xix. 5). It is the realization of this 
primeval conception that distinguishes the Christian theory of 
marriage. From this arises the “elegans paradoxon,” to 
adopt Bengel’s happy phrase, that husband and wife have no 
right to their own bodies, but have a right to one another’s 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VvVu. 2-5. 159 


bodies. This is the reason why their right to one another’s 
goods and chattels must be decided on altogether different 
grounds. ‘To this radical distinction also we must trace the 
wide divergence of the Apostle’s theory of marriage from that 
of Judaism and Paganism. By the law of Moses polygamy 
was allowed under certain limitations. In Greece concubinage 
prevailed as widely as marriage. .In Roman law the woman 
passed in manum viri and was included in his patria potestas ; 
and in the later days of the Republic, when this ancient con- 
ception of marriage had become practically obsolete, far from 
being followed by such a theory as that of the Apostle, which 
gives the potestas (ἐξουσία) to both husbaad and wife, the 
authority of the husband ceased and made room for “ the 
laxest marital tie the Western world has seen.”? Of. Maine, 
Ancient Taw, Ch. V. It must, however, be acknowledged 
that Greek and Roman sentiment was slowly rising towards the 
distinction, as we may infer from the ever widening difference 
between the pafria putestas and the dominica potestas, which 
were at first identical. Cf. Justinian, Institutes, Sander’s Ed. 
I. ix. Gradually the notion of ownership was modified in 
reference to wife and children as distinguished from slaves. 
Cf. Chrys., Hom. de Virginit. 75. 

V.5. Not only is cohabitation the due of husband and 
wife, but the Apostle advises that neither of them should lay 
it aside, except under certain restrictions; viz. first, that it be 
by mutual consent; second, fora time only; third, in order 
to have leisure for special prayer; and, fourth, with a view 
to the resumption of cohabitation in a manner worthy of 
Christians. , 

ἀποστερεῖτε. The object is left unexpressed from motives 
of delicacy. But the word “rob”? alludes to the word “ due.” 

εἰ μή Te av. Sometimes ἄν is used without a mood, if the 
verb can be supplied from a preceding clause. Cf. Hermann, 
De Part. ἄν, p. 187; Hartung, Partikell. 11. p. 380. Buttmann 
(N. 8. p. 129) suggests that ἄν stands for ἐών, sc. ἀποστέρητε 
ἀλλήλους, “ except perhaps in case you may,” etc. But as 
the use of ἄν for ἐάν is very doubtful in the New Test., it 
is more natural to render εἰ μητί by “ except perhaps,”’ aud to 
consider that dv makes the εὖ μητί more indefinite: “ except, 


perhaps, should it so happen” (cf. Jelf, Gr. § 430. 2. Obs, 1). 


160 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


πρὸς καιρόν, “for a time,” the πρός expressing that it is 
with a view to its lasting only a short time. The notion of 
duration is in καιρόν, not in πρός. Of. πρὸς ἑσπέραν “ to- 
wards evening”; and Heb. xii. 10. 

σχολάσητε, 580 δ Α BCD. The aor. refers to extraordinary 
seasons for prayer. Clem. Al. (Strom. III. p. 547 Potter), by 
pointing this out, refutes Tatian the Syrian’s attempt to prove 
from this verse that marriage is in itself sinful. 

The words τῇ νηστείᾳ καί occur in Chrys. (De Virginit.29, et 
al.) Theod., etc. But they are omitted in 8 A B CD, Ignat. 
(Ad Pol. I. 3), Origen (Hom. in Num. xxiii.), Cyprian (Ad 
Quir. 111. 22), Vulg. Fasting cannot be the purpose of ab- 
stention from cohabitation, but is itself a form of abstinence. 
The words had, we may suppose, an ascetic, but early origin 
(? 2nd cent.) both here and, though more doubtfully spurious, 
in Mark ix. 29. In Matt. xvii. 21 and Acts x. 80 they must 
be omitted. 

τῇ προσευχῇ need not be restricted to stated seasons of 
public worship, which would rather be in the plur., as in Col. 
iy. 11 068. 00]. tv.°2). 

ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, “ to the same place,” as in Acts ii. 1, and im- 
plying that there has been for a time a local separation. So 
Erasm., Meyer. Jerome thinks the phrase a euphemism. 

ἦτε, 5ο δ A BCD. It seems to have been altered first to 
συνέρχησθε, and, in the time of Chrys. (De Virginit. 29, et al.) 
to cuvvépyecGe. But Gratama correctly considers ἦτε to de- 
pend on ἵνα, though he is incorrect in saying that the Apostle 
writes inaccurately. Abstention from cohabitation ought to 
have for its purpose, not only special prayer, but also a return 
to cohabitation with all the permanent benefits derived from 
that time of prayer. It is, therefore, unnecessary to suppose 
ἢτε is an anacoluthon for an imperat., occasioned by the 
attraction of the foregoing conjunctions (Osiand). 

διὰ τὴν ἀκρασίαν ὑμῶν. He began with a reference to the 
prevailing immorality of Greek society ; in the end he charges 
the Corinthians themselves withincontinence. ἀκρασία is the 
later form of ἀκρατείαᾳ. Rickert derives it from xepdvvupe 
with a, and renders: “on account of your abstaining from 
matrimonial intercourse ”?; and Cranmer’s Bible has “for your 
continencye.” But κεράννυμι has not the euphemistic mean- 


vy 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VII. 5-7. 161 


ing which μέίγνυμι has, and ἀκρᾶσία would signify, not “ ab- 
sence of mixing,” but “bad mixture.” 

V. 6. τοῦτο refers to all the Apostle has said on the subject 
o* marriage. So Chrys. (De Virg. 34), Bengel, De Wette. 
Tie general advice to abstain from marriage (ver. 1), the 
advice to the incontinent to marry (ver. 2), the advice to the 
married to cohabit (ver. 3), and the advice to abstain for a 
time (ver. 5)—all this variety of exhortation is given by way 
of allowance for the weakness of human nature. Hence the 
necessity for a declaration of the distinction between casuistical 
decisions and moral principles. 

συγγνώμη, which occurs only here in the New Test., does 
not mean “ pardon ”’ in this ver. ; that would yield a very un- 
natural antithesis to “command.” ‘There is, consequently, 
not the slightest ground for the inference of Augustine (De 
Bono Conj. 6, et al.) that the Apostle considered even mar- 
riage, if entered into from any other motive than the perpetua- 
tion of the race, a sin, though a venial one. Neither does 
συγγνώμη ever mean “advice,” “opinion,” (Valck., Hammond, 
Neander) ; so that the antithesis between ovyyv. and ἐπιτωγή 
cannot be the same as that between γνώμη and ἐπιταγή in 
ver. 25. Here it can only mean “ forbearance,” “ concession 
to weakness,” or, to borrow from Aristotle’s definition (Hth. 
Nic. VI. xi. 1), “the discriminating considerateness of equity.” 
So Iren. IV. 15 (29), 2, Origen (Oat.) and Chrys. (Hom. in 
Gal. ii.). If so, he is speaking, not of the permission given 
him by the Holy Ghost (Webst. and Wilkins.), but of the 
allowance made for their weakness and incontinence by the 
Apostle. He has spoken, not asa legislator imposing gene-~ 
ral and unqualified commands, but as an equitable man, who 
takes into consideration their moral weakness. 

V. 7. θέλω. It is usually said that, while βούλομαι im- 
plies a positive wish, ἐθέλω expresses only the negative idea 
of willingness, having no objection. Cf. Shilleto, Dem., De 
Falsa Leg. § 26. This does not hold good in the New Test. 
at least. Indeed Buttmann (Lewil.) and Stallbaum (on Plat., 
Rep. p. 437 B) say that ἐθέλω adds to the notion of wishing 
that of intending (“ voluntatem deliberatione et consilio ni- 
tent»m significat”). Cf. 1 Tim. v.14. He wishes them to 


marry, but he has no intention of urging his wishes upon 
M 


162 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


them. On the other hand, in our passege the Apostle declares 
his wish that all men should be as he himself was, possessed of 
the gift of continence, and his intention to do what he can to 
bring about this result. The Guspel has for its practical aim 
to discipline men to deny fleshly lusts. θέλω is the prevail- 
ing form in Attic prose, except in certain phrases ; θέλω is the 
only form in the New Test. Βούλομαι is a much rarer word 
both in the classics and in the New Test. 

δέ is the reading of ACD, and is adopted by Lachm., 
Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, ete. It gives to πάντας av- 
θρώπους its full and natural force; for these words covertly 
express the Apostle’s exulting joy at the moral victory of the 
Gospel over the world. 

ὡς καὶ ἐμαυτόν, that is, continent. So Chrys. But he 
mentions himself rather than say ἐν ἐγκρατείᾳ to show that 
continence is not a utopian dream. Pierius, the Alexandrian 
commentator in the third century (Jerome, Hp. 49, Ad Pamm.), 
is not the last to maintain that the Apostle in this verse 
preaches celibacy. 

ὡς καί. In correlative clauses καί sometimes occurs in both 
meinbers of the comparison, sometimes only in the demonstra- 
tive clause, sometimes only in the relative. But it is not the 
καί of comparison, as it is in ὁμοίως καί, but preserves its 
force, “also.” The pivot of comparison is in ὡς, not in καί. 
But when the καί occurs only in the second member of the 
comparison, the writer, in penning the first clause, either had 
not the second clause in his mind, or purposely Jeft the reader 
unprepared for it. Cf. Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 126. So 
here. ‘The Apostle starts with θέλω πάντας ἀνθρώπους, as if 
the were about to finish with ἐγκρατεύεσθαι. But he suddenly 
‘changes the expression into a more concrete and personal 
form. Cf. Mark xiv. 31. ‘Eyavrov is an example of the 
ssomewhat rare attraction of the nom. into the accus. after ὡς, 
ὥσπερ, ὥστε. Of. Thuc. VI. 68, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡμᾶς, and Poppo 
on Thuc. V. 44. 

ἴδιον χάρισμα. Continence is the common material out of 
which a special class of χαρίσματα are formed, which, how- 
ever, have each of them its own distinguishing characteristic 
(cf. xii. 11). De Wette and Alford consider the words to be 
a milder expression for “all have not the gift of continence.” 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VII. 7, 8. 16% 


But this would imply that incontinence also is a gift. What he 
means is that marriage and celibacy are equally gifts of God, 
wherein purity of soul may manifest itself and be developed. 
Πνέει χαρίσματος 6 γάμος, says Origen even, Similarly Theod. 
and Jerome (Adv. Jovin. I. 8). But we must not say that 
χάρισμω expresses nothing more than “moral and intellectual 
gifts” (Stanley; so also Origen, Cat. in Rom. i. 11: ἔστι yap 
TWA χαρίσματα οὐ πνευματικά, ὡς καὶ ὁ γάμος" TO γὰρ πνευμα- 
τικὸν οὐκ ἄν ποτε ἐμποδίσαι προσευχῇ). Though all attain- 
ments are God’s gifts, it is only when they are sanctified by 
the Spirit to Christ’s service that they become χαρίσματα. 
St. Paul himself defines χάρισμα as δωρεὰ ἐν χάριτι (Rom. v. 
15). Ἐκ, as in xi. 12; John x. 82. The use of ἐκ to denote 
the agent is rare in Attic prose. 

ὁ μέν... ὁ δέ. SoNABCD. The reading ὃς pév... 
ὃς δέ arose from the frequent use of the relative. Cf. Dem,, 
De Cor. p. 243, ἃς μὲν ἀναιρῶν, εἰς as δὲ τοὺς φυγάδας 
κατάγων. Cf, Rom. xiv. 5. 


(2) The Case of a Christian who has not been married or is 
in a state of widowhood. 
(Vv. 8, 9). 

V.8. λέγω δέ, “now what I mean is this.” Cf. note on 
i. 12. Though λέγω grammatically belongs to this clause 
only, logically it introduces all the particular decisions that 
follow to the end of. the Chapter, and in ver. 40 the notion 
that the Apostle’s decisions are authoritative is repeated in a 
stronger form. 

By τοῖς ἀγάμοις Erasm., Musculus, Grotius understand 
*‘ widowers,”’ corresponding to tats χήραις. But it must here 
include all unmarried persons, in contrast to τοῖς γεγαμηκόσι, 
ver. 10. Hence «ai is, not “and also,” but “and especially,” 
et quidem. Cf. Mark xvi. 7; Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 145. 
Meyer thinks the Apostle wished the widows to remain un- 
married in the interests of the Church. The special position 
assigned to widows in the early Church had probably some 
connection with the ascetic tendency of the age. In the 
second and third centuries the deaconesses were chosen from 


164 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the widows. Of. Tert., De Veland. Virg. 19; Ad Uzaor. I. 7. 
The reading in Ignat., Ad Smyrn. xiii. 1,15. doubtful, but Voss 
thinks the word tas παρθένους Tas λεγόμενας χήρας is an 
allusion to deaconesses. The Pastor of Hermas says that a 
widow or a widower who remains unmarried gains greater 
honour with the Lord (cf. Mand. IV. iv. 2). Athenagoras 
(Leg. p. 37) probably meant marriage after the death of a 
first husband when he said ὁ δεύτερος γάμος εὐπρεπής ἐστι 
μοιχεία. Cf. also Clem. Al., Strom. III. p.428. We may with 
some confidence infer that in the Apostle’s advice to widows 
not to contract a second marriage we have a reference to those 
widows for whose support the Church had already made pro- 
vision (Acts vi. 1), and who afterwards acquired a more official 
position as deaconesses, or, in a later age, as members of the 
χήρικον, the viduate. The present passage marks an inter- 
mediate stage in the growth of that office. 

ὡς κἀγώ. Those who understand widowers by ἀγώμοις 
argue from these words that the Apostle was a widower. So 
Erasm., Grot. If we set aside as corrupt or not genuine the 
Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians, the belief that the 
Apostle had been married rests solely on a statement of Clem. 
Al. (Strom. III. p. 585 Potter), cited by Hus. (H.H#. III. 24), 
Παῦλος οὐκ ὀκνεῖ ἔν τινι ἐπιστολῇ τὴν αὐτοῦ προσαγορεύειν 
σύζυγον. But this is evidently not a tradition, but an infer- 
ence from a mistaken interpretation of Phil. iv. 3. Tert. (De 
Monog. 8) says Peter was the only one married among the 
Apostles. Cf. Jerome, Hp. 22, Ad Eustoch. ὃ 20. Certainly 
we may infer from this ver. that Paul was never married. 

V.9,. εἰ δὲ οὐκ ἐγκρατεύονται, “but if they are inconti- 
nent”; equivalent to εἰ δὲ ἀκρατεύονται (Arist., Eth. Nie. 
VIT. 6. Cf. x. 1; Matt. xxvi. 42; Ken, Mem. II. vi. 3 and 
Kiihner’s note). ‘This is not the only force of ov in a con- 
ditional clause; for it sometimes expresses an antithesis 
between the conditional and some other clause, as in ix. 2. 
Canon Evans so explains it here. Ἐγκρατεύομαι is not a 
class. word. The aor. ἐγώμησα is a later form of ἔγημα, which 
occurs in Luke xiv. 20. 

πυροῦσθαι, pres., “to burn on” (so Canon Evans ex- 
cellently). ‘Tert. (De Pudic. 16), Cyprian (Hp. 4, Ed. Fell) 
and Pelagius understand it of the fire of hell. They would 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—vu. 8-11. 165 


not have fallen into this error, if the Lat. expressed the force 
of the Greek present. Clem. Al. gives the correct explan- 
ation. It is synonymous with the ἐξεκαύθησαν of Rom. i. 27. 


(9) The Case of a Christian married to a Christian. 
(Vv. 10, 11). 


V.10. παρωαγγέλλω denotes the command of a superior. 
But παρακαλέω, with which it is sometimes joined (2 Thess. 
iii. 12), expresses urgency more than authority. 

οὐκ ἐγώ, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ Κύριοςς Of. note on ver. 12. 

χωριφθῆναι. AD read χωρίζεσθαι, adopted by Lachm. 
The aor. is more usual after verbs of commanding. The 
Apostle omits an important modification of the doctrine that 
marriage is indissoluble, which in Matthew’s Gospel is found 
in the teaching of Christ, viz. “ except for the cause of adultery.” 
But its omission in the other Gospels proves that its absence 
in our passage is not necessarily occasioned by a difference 
between Christ’s doctrine and the Apostle’s. The Apostle is 
stating Christ’s doctrine as authoritative; and his omitting 
all reference to the one lawful reason for divorce shows that 
he is speaking of a voluntary separation, which does not 
affect the vinculum of the marriage. Χωρισθῆναι has a mid. 
sense, as the 1 aor. pass. often has in the New Test. (cf. 
Rom. vi. 17, παρεδόθη, Matt. ix. 86, ἐσπλαγχνίσθη, James 
iv. 7, ὑποτάγητε). Xwpifw is said of the man (Matt. xix. 6), 
χωρίζομαι of the woman (Polyb. XXXII. 12). 

V.11. ἐὰν δὲ καὶ χωρισθῇ. Osiand., Hofm., Alford trans- 
late: “if such a separation have really taken place”; but 
incorrectly. Οὗ. Goodwin, Greek Moods ὃ 20, Note 1. ‘lhe 
supposition is that a case of the kind may occur in the future; 
the wife, that is to say, separating from the husband in con- 
travention of the law that divorce is not permitted, except, as 
we may presume is implied, on account of adultery. ‘The «ar 
emphasizes, not the condition, but the word χωρισθῇ : “if she 
go so far as actually to separate from her husband notwith- 
standing the command” (cf. iv. 7; Matt. xviii. 17). Augus- 
tine wrote one of the books De Conjugiis Adulterinis to prove 
thut the Apostle here supposes the case of a woman that 


166 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


separates from her husband because of his adultery. Romanist 
expositors, adopting this interpretation, infer that im no case 
can the vineulum of marriage be dissolved, except by death, 
and, therefore, that, when one of the parties is guilty of 
adultery, the other party may not contract a second marriage. 
Augustine’s argument is that, if the Apostle were referring to 
any other case than that of the wife’s separation because of 
the husband’s adultery, he would not give her the option of 
remaining unmarried, but would command her to-be recon- 
ciled to her husband. Protestant expositors endeayour to 
rebut this argument by saying that there are circumstances 
which justify a woman in leaving her husband, but do not 
justify divorce. This, however, contradicts ver. 5. Besides, 
χωρισθῇ refers to the same kind of separation as χωρισθῆναι, 
which undoubtedly means divorce ; for the Apostle is citing 
the words in which Christ prohibits divorce. We need not 
suppose, with Hodge and others, that the Apostle justifies the 
woman’s conduct. It is the ease of a woman that persists in 
divorcing herself from her husband for an insufficient reason. 
She trausgresses the law of Christ. She ought to be recon- 
ciled to her husband. If she refuses to be reconciled, at Jeast 
let her remain unmarried. No one will say that such a case 
was not likely to occur in the Corinthian Church, who bears in 
mind the ease with which a divorce was obtainable in Greece 
or Rome. Cf. Plut., Cat. Min. 25; Juvenal, Sat. VI. 224, 
jiammea conierit. Among the Jews the school of Hillel per- 
mitted divorce κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν, Matt. xix. 8. Very differ- 
ent from Augustine’s is Chrysostom’s interpretation. He 
supposes that the woman lives apart from religious motives. 
De Wette also thinks it is the case of an ascetic. But it would 
not be necessary to bid such a person remain unmarried; and 
καταλλαγήτω implies that the woman separates from her 
husband on account of dissension. 

ἀφιέναι, depending on παραγγέλλω. Adzévas is said to be 
a milder word than ἀποπέμπειν, and both than ἐκβάλλω. But 
the three words denote the act of dismissal, while ἀπολύω 
(Matt. v. 32) denotes more directly the dissolution of the 
marriage, and χωρίζω simply the actual separation. 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—vu. 11,12. | 167 


(4) The Case of a Christian married to an Unbeliever that is 
willing to cohubit with the Believer. 


(Vv. 12-14). 


V.12. τοῖς δὲ λουποῖ;, co-ordinate with τοῖς γεγαμηκόσι 
and τοῖς dyayois, introducing, therefore, two supposed cases 
of mixed marriages, the one of an unbeliever willing, the other 
of an unbeliever refusing, to cohabit with the Christian. 
.Estius and Cor, a Lap. understand the reference to be to the 
married. But we should then expect μέν with γεγαμηκόσι 
and a connecting particle after εἰ, On the other hand, 
Augustine (De Conj. Adult. I. xii.), who correctly says the 
Apostle is speaking of mixed marriages, thinks λέγω differs 
from παραγγέλλω as exhortation differs from command; and 
from this interpretation of Augustine’s Aquinas and Herveeus 
argue that it is allowable, though not always expedient, for 
the believer to divorce the unbeliever. The distinction be- 
tween λέγω and παραγγέλλω being baseless, their infereuce 
falls to the ground. 

ἐγώ, οὐχ ὁ Κύριος. The distinction is not between uninspired 
and inspired commands of the Apostle, as Tertullian (De 
Hehort. Cast. 3 and 4) understood it, though he was afraid of 
being considered irreligious for daring to say so. Origen (In 
Joh. i. 5) explains it in the same way; and Milton (Tetrach.) 
says, “If the Lord spake not, then man spake it, and man 
hath no lordship to command over conscience.” But this in- 
terpretation affords no logical resting-place. If we say that 
the Apostle is usually writing under the infallible guidance of 
a Divine inspiration, but that when he speaks on the question 
of celibacy his inspiration fails him, to return suddenly when 
he enters on the question of divorce, again to desert him when 
he writes on the case of mixed marriages, inspiration becomes 
at once arbitrary and mechanical; arbitrary, because there is 
nothirg in the nature of the subjects discussed to account for 
the difference, and mechanical, because it comes and gves 
independently of the writer’s mental activity. Chrys. (De 
Virgin. 12) offers a more satisfactory explanation. On the ques- 
tion of divorce Christ Himself had legislated for His Church 
when He was on earth. We have His decision in Matt. v. 32; 


168 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO°THE CORINTHIANS. 


xix. 9. But touching other questions discussed by the Apostle 
we have no direct decision of the Lord. The question of 
divorce touches the inmost nature of marriage, as it was 
instituted by God at the beginning and afterwards connected 
by Christianity with the union between Christ and the Church. 
For this reason Christ, as the Divine lawgiver of His Church, 
rescinded (“ But 1 say unto you’) the Mosaic permission to a 
man to divorce his wife for other causes than adultery and 
restored the original idea of marriage. St. Paul never dared 
rescind a law of Moses. Cf. Chrys., De Christi Precibus 3. 
Yet the Apostle draws various inferences from the words of 
Christ. One distinction between the teaching of Christ and 
that of His Apostles must necessarily be that Christ always 
commands. We have no instance of His arriving at a con- 
clusion through a process of reasoning, much less of His dis- 
cussing a question and leaving it undecided. John Baptist 
is said παρακάλειν τὸν λαόν, Christ never. This absolute 
certitude is essential in the revelation of central principles. 
But it would be destructive of all that is valuable in human 
effort, if it extended to the minute details of practical life; if 
it decided beforehand every possible case of conscience and 
reduced our moral activity to a mechanical conformity with 
unswerving and merely authoritative regulaticns. The danger 
attaches to all books of causistry; but in a book accepted 
by the doubting conscience as containing divinely inspired 
causistry, the effect is fatal. The writings of the Apostles 
abound, on the other hand, in argument and inference, which 
sometimes end in practical decisions, sometimes result only in 
the expression of an opinion. The decision is often left to the 
enlightened conscience of the spiritual man (cf. ver. 25). But 
apart from the teaching of Christ, which is the fons et origo 
of revelation, the inspiration of the Apostles would have been 
an altogether different thing from what it actually is. Baur 
(Theol. Jahrb.) thinks the Apostle is speaking of the higher 
and lower degrees of certitude with which a Christian truth 
presented itself to his consciousness. What he received as 
truth without doubt or misgiving was to him the voice of 
Christ; but whatever was accepted with more or less doubt he 
himself spoke, not Christ. Practically this view amounts to 
the same thing as the view of Chrysostom, and in its point of 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VII. 12, 13. 169 


difference it is less satisfactory. For the certitude with which 
truths present themselves to the mind varies by imperceptible 
degrees and at different times. The pres. παραγγέλλει is no 
difficulty. It means that the command of Christ was still in 
force. We need not suppose, with Bengel, that Christ gave the 
Apostle an immediate revelation on the question of divorce. 
The general tradition of the early Church and the narrative in 
the Book of Acts points to an intimate connection between 
St. Paul and the Evangelist Luke. Indeed our Lord’s doc- 
trine on the subject was in that age singular, and cannot 
fail to have been known among Christians throughout the 
world. 

ἔχει. The supposed case is that of a man who was already 
married before he became a Christian. The case of a Christian 
marrying a heathen is not put. On οἰκεῖν meaning “ co- 
habitation” ef. Soph., Gd. Tyr. 990, ἧς οἰκεῖ μετά, that is, as 
his wife. 

V. 18. ἥτις, implying that the Apostle is speaking of a 
class. Cf. note on iii. 17. δὲ Ὁ read εἴ τις. 

οὗτος. SoNA BCD, adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., 
Weste. and Hort. Both αὐτός and οὗτος are used in the New 
Test. and LXX. in the sense of “he.” Cf. Buttmann, N.S. 
pp. 95 and 328. The use of καί and the demonstrative where 
we should expect the relative or participle is of frequent 
occurrence in class. Greek. The repetition of the relative was 
avoided from preference for direct narration. Cf. Bernhardy, 
W.S. p. 304; Stallbaum’s note to Rep. III. p. 395. So in 
viii. 6; Tit. 1..2,3 ;-2:Pet: 1. 3. 

μὴ ἀφιέτω αὐτόν. ᾿Αφιέναι is properly used of the husband, 
ἀπολείπω of the wife. Bengel and Meyer sugyest that 
ἀφιέναι is here used of the wife because the Christian is the 
superior party. Rather, ἀφιέναι is the expression used by 
Christ for “ renouncing” all things for his sake. A touching 
story is told-by Justin Martyr (Apol. IL. 2) of a Christian 
woman who for a length of time continued to live with her 
unbelieving and unchaste husband in hope she might reform 
him. After long and fruitless efforts she at last gave him a 
bill of divorce and separated from him; whereupon he informed 
on her that she was a Christian. Here a believer cohabits 
with an unbeliever; and when at last she leaves him, it is 


Lid THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


not because he is a heathen, but for unnatural cruelty and 
unchastity. 

V. 14. ἀδελφῷ is the reading of NA BCD. ‘Apa: ef. 
note on vy. 10. Ἔστι: on the pres. after ἐπεὶ cf. v. 10, 
ὀφείλετε. Having stated as a fact the consequence of a mixed 
marriage, he states, also as a fact, the alternative, which neces- 
sarily follows if that consequence does not follow. 

Three explanations have been offered of the Apostle’s state- 
ment that the children of believers are holy: 

First, that the children of even a mixed marriage are 
legitimate, sanctitate quadam civili. So Cajet., Muscul., Cor. 
a Lap., Melanchth., Wolf (hesitatingly), Heydenr., and certain 
antipeedobaptists who think to evade, with the help of this 
interpretation, the inference which other divines have drawn 
from the words im favour of infant baptism. Against this 
view are the following considerations: (1) Ἅγιος means more 
than the negation of νύθος. (2) This view makes all heathen 
marriages illegitimate. (3) It supposes that τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν 
denotes the children of mixed marriages only, whereas the 
word ὑμῶν shows that the reference is to the children of any 
Christian parents. Those who feared that cohabitation with 
an unbelieving husband or wife would defile a Christian would, 
by parity of reason, believe that the children of a mixed 
marriage are ἀκάθαρτα. (4) To prove that the children of a 
mixed marriage are legitimate would not of itself be enough 
to prove that the Christian ought not to separate from the 
unbeliever. 

Second, Theod., Cyril Al. (σαγηνεύσομεν εἰς εὐσέβειαν), 
Photius, Estius, Hammond (Pract. Cat. VI. ui.), De Wette, 
Osiand., Olshaus., Neand., Maier think the Apostle is speaking 
of the moral influence which the believer’s holy life will have 
upon the children and, consequently, it may be hoped, on tlie 
unbelieving wife or husband. Snch was Nonna, who made 
her husband a Christian by her life, not by arguments (Gree. 
Naz., Carm. 68). This view is mentioned by Tertullian (De 
Awimd, 89, “ex: institutionis disciplini”) and Augustine (De 
Serm. in Monte 111. 45; im De Peccat. Merit. 111. 12 he 
speaks more doubtfully). The perf. ἡγίασται would then refer 
to actual instances of the conversions brought about already 
in Corinth by the holy life of the Christian; and certainly 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VII. 138, 14. Lit 


ayiafouat may signify the conversion of the unbeliever (cf. 
i. 2). But, besides that this view makes τὰ τέκνα denote more 
naturally the children of mixed marriages, it does not follow 
that, if the unbelieving husband is not converted, the children 
also will remain unconverted. Moreover, the reply would not 
really touch the difficulty felt by the Apostle’s questioners, 
who feared moral defilement from the perpetuation of a 
marriage union with an unbeliever. Further, the correct 
understanding of ver. 16 will lead to the inference that the 
Apostle considered the contingency of the unbeliever’s con- 
version by the believer’s example too remote to be used as 
an argument for perpetuating the marriage union between 
them. 

Third, many Protestant divines explain it to mean sanctitas 
federalis. The children of believers are in God’s covenant. 
From this the Second Helvetic Confession argues that they 
have a right to baptism, the sign of the covenant. But when 
we enquire into the meaning of “federal holiness,” Lutherans 
and most Calvinists! part company. For the former under- 
stand by it a right to the external privileges of the Church 
or, to borrow Bramhall’s words (whose view is similar), ‘fan 
exterior or ecclesiastical sanctity.” Cf. Gerhard, Loci. XXI. 
viii. § 217. On the other hand Calvin, followed by Beza and 
Peter Martyr, argues from this verse that the children of a 
Christian parent are already from their birth ‘ supernaturali 
gratia sancti” (Just. IV. xvi. 81). Beza, however, modified 
this doctrine of the internal sanctification of believers’ children 
and their ‘latent possession of the seed of faith”? (as Calvin 
said), by making their federal holiness consist, not in their 
actual sanctification at their birth, but in the certainty that 
elect children of believers will hereafter receive the grace of 
regeneration ew auditu. He therefore justified their baptism 
in infancy by the faith of their parent.? Against the Lutheran 


? Not all. Turretin (Inst. XV, Q. xiv. § 14) differs from Calvin in explaining 
it of ““ Christianismus”’ and “ sanctitas externa.” 

2 Hooker’s remarks on the subject are noteworthy, because of the allusions 
he makes to these various theories: ‘‘ We are plainly taught by God that the 
seed of faithful parentage is holy from the very birth. Which albeit we may 
not so understand, as if the children of believing parents were without sin [the 
Romanist doctrine], or grace from baptized parents derived from propagation 
(Calvin’s doctrine], or God by covenant and promise tied to save any in mere 


172 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


doctrine the Dutch Calvinists especially argued that an ex- 
ternal sanctity has no place under the new covenant, and no 
one can be called holy unless he is truly holy within, because 
all the promises and precepts of the new covenant are internal. 
Cf. Vitringa, Doct. Christ. Relig. XXIV. pp. 116,117. It is 
objected to the Lutherans that they make the baptism of a 
believer’s children altogether meaningless; but they reply 
that the sanctification ascribed to them is bestowed upon them 
at their baptism. But this is certainly not the Apostle’s 
meaning. If he intended to ascribe their children’s holiness 
to their baptism, it would not follow that, if the husband were 
not sanctified in the wife, the children could not be sanctified 
in baptism. Again, Calvin’s interpretation cannot be what 
the Apostle here intends; for the holiness ascribed to the 
children must be of the same kind as the holiness resulting 
from it to the unbelieving husband or wife. But no one will 
say that the unbeliever is a child of God in virtue of his 
marriage with a Christian. 

Fourth, Bengel, Grotius, Hofmann, etc., think the sanctifi- 
cation of the unbelieving husband of a believing wife denotes 
the character of the marriage-union, not the personal character 
of the husband. Tertullian mentions this as an alternative 
explanation (‘ex seminis preerogativa”’). The Christian 
character of the marriage is proved from the sanctity of the 
children of a Christian parent. The Apostle argues that, if 
parentage is a Christian relation, so also is marriage. It 
implies that, if the children partake of the consecration of a 
believing parent, much more will the husband partake of 
the consecration of the believing wife. The union between 
husband and wife constitutes a complex personality ; that 
between parent and child does not. The solidarité of men 
in their various relations is a pre-eminently Pauline concep- 
tion. The race is one; the Church is one; and the family is 
one. It is not true that the privileges of the new covenant 
are internal and individual only. Yet the Apostle does not 


regard of their parents’ belief [Beza’s doctrine]: yet seeing that to all pro- 
essors of the name of Christ this pre-eminence above infidels is freely given, 
the fruit of their bodies bringeth forth into the world with it a present interest 
and right to those means {Luther's doctrine], wherewith the ordinance of 
Christ is that His Church shall be sanctified’’ (Eccl. Pol. V. 1x. 6). 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VI. 14. 175 


sacrifice the individual to the community any more than the 
community to the individual. Indeed, it is the individual faith 
of one member of the family that confers sanctity upon the 
family and, as touching their relation to the family, on all 
its other members. For this reason also the sanctity of the 
family is not a figment nor a mere idea, but a practical power. 
For the believing member may be trusted to bring into a 
family that is Christian in idea the Christian influence also 
of prayer, example, and teaching. These, however, do not 
create its sanctity; they flow from it. ‘This view yields an 
excellent meaning, and it disposes at once of Baur’s theory 
(Theol. Jahrb, 1852, p. 18) that St. Paul recognizes no moral 
element in marriage, nor even the divinely-appointed means 
to perpetuate the race,—nothing, in fact, but a remedy for 
incontinence. 

As to the bearing of this ver. on infant baptism, if neither 
proves nor disproves that infants were baptized in the Apos- 
tolic Church. It does not prove it; for the sanctification here 
spoken of is the children’s inheritance in virtue, not of their 
baptism, but of their relation to a Christian parent. It does 
not disprove it, as De Wette and Neander (Hist. of Dogmas, 
Eng. Trans., I. p. 230) allege, at least if we accept the ob- 
signatory theory of baptism. Indeed, supposing this to be 
the Apostle’s theory, the principle on which infant baptism 
rests is contained in this verse. For if infants are either 
children of God or in the covenant, why not give them the 
symbol and seal of their privilege? 


(5) Lhe Cause of a Christian married to an Unbeliever that 
refuses to cohabit with the Believer. 


Vv. 15, 16. 


In this case the Christian is free to regard the unbelievers’ 
departure as a separation and a dissolution of the marriage ; 
for three reasons: (1) the believer has not been made a slave 
by becoming a Christian; (2) the Christian’s call has given 
him or her a right to the enjoyment of peace; (3) these Christ- 
ian privileges of liberty and peace are not to be sacrificed 
from an uncertain and probably fallacious hope of saving the 


ἘΠῚ THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


unbeliever, by continuing in the bondage of wedlock when the 
unbeliever has severed the actual union. : 

V.15. χωρίζεται, pres. marking intention: “if he is bent 
on departing.’ Χωριζέσθω, concess. imperat., but even here 
conveying something of decision and authority, if not also of 
contempt: ‘‘ let him begone.” 

ov dedovAwtar. The rendering of the Auth. Vers. (“is not 
under bondage ”’) arose probably from the notion that the 
Apostle 15 contrasting the hberty wherewith Christ has made 
us free (Gal. v. 1) with the bondage of the law. But he is 
speaking of a particular application of the doctrine of Christ- 
ian liberty. Christianity has not made slaves of believers as 
touching marriage. It has revived the original conception of 
marriage, but has not imposed a new obligation. The words 
imply what is subsequently more directly stated, that the 
Apostle would reject the doctrine of counsels of perfection. 
But the real question is whether the Apostle means to say that 
a Christian, if finally deserted by an unbelieving husband or 
wife, is at liberty to marry another. Bengel, Olshausen and 
others deny it. If he permits a second marriage after deser- 
tion, how are his words consistent with Christ’s prohibition of 
a divorce except only for adultery? But itis one thing to 
divorce husband or wife, another to be repudiated. In ver. 12 
he is careful to say, as if he anticipated the objection, that he 
is now proceeding to the consideration of cases to which, as 
not having arisen, Christ made no reference. One of them is 
the case of a Christian repudiated by the unbeliever. Ben- 
gel objects also that the Apostle himself in ver. 11 commands 
the believing wife, who has insisted on separating from her hus- 
band, to remain unmarried. But in ver. 15 he is dealing with 
the case of a wife finally deserted, not of one who separates 
herself. Another objection has been based on an incorrect in- 
terpretation of the words, “ God has called us in peace,”’ which 
are really a reason for a second marriage, not for abstention. 
In favour of the view that the Apostle permits the deserted 
Christian to contract a second marriage are the following 
considerations: (1) No other explanation does justice to the 
words ‘is not enslaved.” It has been argued (e.g. by Tholuck, 
Bergp. pp. 233, sqq. 3rd Ed., otherwise 1st Ed.) that the 
Apostle is not speaking of a final and absolute desertion. If 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VII. 14, 15. 175 


so, the condition of the deserted believer is the worst form of 
slavery. Cf. Gerhard, Loci, De Conjugiis, § 627; Nitzsch, 
Syst. d. Christl. Lehre, p. 838, 6th Ed. (2) Equity seems to 
require that at least a person that has not the power of con- 
tinence should not be precluded from marrying ina case of 
final desertion.  Nequaquam,” says Melanchthon (Loci, App. 
J.), “laquei injiciendi sunt innocenti persone propter aliena 
delicta: Ὁ a principle of general application and decisive of 
the question. Fabiola, in the time of Jerome, is a case in 
point. She even deserted her husband for his vileness and 
married another, because she had not the gift of continence. 
Jerome (Up. 77, Ad Ocean.) excuses her conduct. But she did 
penance after her second husband’s death. (3) If the desertion 
is absolute and final, the marriage is de facto dissolved. But 
why is it permitted to a widower to contract a second marriage, 
if not because death annuls a marriage de facto? By parity 
of reason may we not argue that final desertion, as it brings 
the union to an end actually, leaves the deserted believer free 
to marry another? This view was held in the early Church 
by Ambrosiaster. But the Council of Arles (4.p. 314) advised 
abstention. 
ἐν εἰρήνῃ . . *Oeos. Winer (Gr. ὃ L.), Maier and De 
Wette think ἐν is for εἰς, “ called into peace.”” But καλεῖν can 
hardly be considered a verb of motion. Cf. Harless’ and Elli- 
cott’s notes on Eph. iv. 4. The latter well observes: “ We 
are called ἐπ᾽ ἐλενθερίᾳ and els ζωὴν αἰώνιον, but ἐν εἰρήνῃ, 
ἐν ἁγιασμῷ and ἐν pia ἐλπίδι.’ The reason of the differ- 
ence may be that liberty and life are our condition, but that 
peace, sanctification, hope are the attitude of the soul when it 
reflects on its condition. Hence “ peace” in our passage is — 
much more than a state of permanent truce between two 
parties. It is their tendency to lose sight of the deeper con- 
ception of peace that marks the comparative shallowness and 
different stand-point of sub-apostolic writers. To them peace 
is the cessation of hostilities. Consequeutly the question of 
Church order assumes an importance in their eyes, as the 
final aim of Christian endeavour, not assigned to it in St. 
Paul’s writings, He also, it is true, represents peace as the 
ultimate goal, but not in this negative and external sense. It 
includes the deep tranquillity of the spirit, the peace which 


176 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Christ gave His disciples. To endure affliction is consistent 
with the profoundest spiritual peace ; but to cling tenaciously 
to an unbeliever that spurns the Christian from him is the un- 
rest of weakness, the perturbation of a soul that seeks its 
happiness in the creature, not in God. But there is special 
reference in the words to a person that has not the gift of con- 
tinence. The divinely-ordained means to secure his ‘‘ peace ” 
is marriage. Many expositors explain the clause as a limita- 
tion of the statement that the believer has not been enslaved in 
such cases: ‘Though the believer is free, still it is his duty to 
live in peace as far as possible.” But if the unbeliever has 
finally deserted the Christian, it is inconsistent to add that 
the believer must live in peace with the unbeliever. Chrys., 
Pelag., Theophyl., Cajet., Est., De Wette, Meyer, Harless, 
Osiand., etc., rightly understand the words as a reason for 
separation. The word “call”? may be intended to allude, in 
a secondary sense, to runners in a race. Perhaps Clement 
of Rome (Ad Cor, 19) has the passage in his thoughts when 
he urges the Corinthians to run towards the goal of peace 
delivered to them from the beginning. 

V. 16. τί; not‘ how ? ” but “how far ἢ The r/ expresses, 
not the manner in which the knowledge is to be obtained, 
but the extent of it. Cf. Matt. xvi. 26; xxvi. 65. Οἶδας is 
Ionic, rare in Attic. Like many other lonic forms, it re- 
appears in the κουνή and supersedes οἶσθα in the New Test., 
certainly not from “ lettered affectation.”’ 

What is this verse a reason for? Tert. (Ad Uzor. II. 2), 
Chrys. (Cat.), Theod., Augustine (De Conj. Adult. I. xin), Pho- 
tius, Herveeus, Cajet., Hodge, etc., connect it with vv. 13, 14, 
as a reason why the believer should continue to live with the 
unbelieving husband or wife, if the unbeliever consents. It 
is improbable that ver. 15 is parenthetical. Besides, this view 
implies the Christian’s right to depart, if there is no hope 
of the unbeliever’s conversion though the unbeliever be con- 
tent to remain. We must, therefore, accept the interpreta- 
tion proposed by De Lyra, and regard these two questions 
as the third reason for letting the unbelieving husband 
or wife depart, if he or she refuses to remain unless the 
believer renounces Christianity. The privilege of spiritual 
peace, especially if continence is imperilled, must not be 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VvII. 17-24. Lt 


sacrificed to so remote a contingency as the conversion of an 
unbeliever that demands the renunciation of Christianity as the 
first condition of cohabitation. St. Peter also intimates, by his 
use of καὶ εἶ, that he considered the conversion of such as had 
been hitherto disobedient to the word difficult and improbable ; 
yet he is speaking of husbands willing to cohabit with their 
Christian wives. This view is adopted by Hst., De Wette, 
Meyer, Alford, Stanley, Neander, Osiand., Maier, etc. But 
some of them incorrectly allege that εἰ would be bad Greek 
in the sense of “ whether thou mayest πού. De Wette says 
it is “allem Sprachgebrauche widerstreitend,” and Osiander 
supposes it crept into the Greek of the Fathers from the 
Lat. haud scioan! But cf. Xen., Mem. 1. i. 8, οὔτε τῷ καλὴν 
γήμαντι iv εὐφραίνηται δῆλον εἰ δία ταύτην ἀνιάσεται,“ ib is ποῦ 
certain that he will ποῦ suffer”’; Thuc. II. 52, ἄδηλον νομίζων 
εἰ διαφθαρήσεται, where see Poppo’s note; Hur., Heracl. 791, 
φόβος yap εἰ μοι ζῶσιν ods ἐγὼ θέλω, “I am afraid that 
they are not alive.” The objection to Chrysostom’s inter- 
pretation is not the grammar, but the connection. Cf Immer, 
Hermeneut. p. 145. 


(6) A Digression in reference to Circumcision and Slavery. 
(Vv. 17-24.) 


The connection of these verses with what precedes depends 
on the meaning we assign to εἰ μή. (1) Chrys. (Cat. ; other- 
wise Hom.), Theod. (Cat.; otherwise in loc.), Gicum., who 
ascribes the view to Severian, read ἢ μή, a8 a disjunctive mem- 
ber of the preceding question: τί οἶδας εἰ τὴν γυναῖκα σώσεις 
ἢ μὴ (σώσεις ) MS. authority is decisive against the reading. 
(2) Others read εἰ μή, but join the words in the same way to 
what precedes. But εἰ cannot be used for 7. In 2 Cor. iii. 1 
εἰ has been so rendered; but the true reading is 7. (8) Others 
. render it by “if not,” that is, “if thou canst not save the 
unbeliever, let every one walk,” etc. This would be εἰ δὲ μή 
or εἰ δὲ καὶ μή. (4) Chrys. (Hom.), Theod. (in loc.), Herveeus 
join it to what precedes, and put a full stop after Κύριος : “how 
knowest thou that thou wilt save thy wife unless thou behavest 
to her according to the grace given thee?” But this would 
destroy the force of the argument in ver. 16, which rests on the 

N 


178 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


improbability of the unbeliever’s conversion, even though the 
Christian’s behaviour be worthy of his holy calling. (5) Beza, 
Grotius, Wolf, Meyer (earlier Hdd.) make εἰ μή synon. with 
ἀλλά (cf. Jelf, Gr. ὃ 860,5 δ). But in the New Test. εἰ μή 
has always an exceptive force, as may be seen from its always 
following a negative clause. Cf. Fritzsche on Rom. xiv. 14 ud 
jin. (6) There cannot be much doubt that De Wette’s render- 
ing, adopted by Olshaus., Osiand., Harless, Meyer (latest Edd.), 
Maier, Alford, Evans, etc., is the correct one. The Apostle 
has stated his doctrine of Christian liberty and applied it to 
the case of a believer married, before his conversion, to an 
unbeliever, who refuses to live with the Christian unless she 
renounces her new religion. With his usual balance of thought 
and care to shun a one-sided and therefore misleading state- 
ment, St. Paul, who was not one of those men ‘‘ who license 
mean when they cry liberty,’ proceeds to state the opposite 
truth, that Christian liberty does not dissolve or disturb worldly 
relations, but, on the contrary, confers upon them anew charac- 
ter, that of constituting the various forms assumed by obedience 
to the “call” of the Gospel. He introduces the principle of 
order as limiting in actual life the principle of liberty. Christ- 
janity has not weds slaves of us; but neither has it brought 
in anarchy. It is not despotic; itis not revolutionary. The 
‘Christian is free from the bondage of wedlock with the un- 
believer that insists on his denying Christ, ‘ saving that” 
every one should abide in the position in which his Christian 
walling has placed him. Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 5, εἰ μὴ ἐν ταῖς 
ἀσθενείαις. 

V.17. ἑκάστῳ ws. Cf. note on iii. ὅ. The word is re- 
peated for emphasis. Cf. Phil. ii. 4. 

6 Κύριος, .. ὁ Θεός. SoN ABCD, Vulg.; adopted by 
Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. De Wette and 
Meyer iihink that by Κύριος is meant God, which makes 
the change to ὁ Θεός in the next clause meaningless. The 
Christian’s lot and work in life is the dispensation (μεμέρικεν) 
of Christ, and a man’s call (κέκληκεν) by God to be a Christian 
turns that lot and work into an expression of his religion, 
which consists henceforth in obedience (cf. Harless, Die 
Hihescheid. p. 99). As far as human action is concerned the 
Apostle does not acknowledge the distinction between sacred 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VII. 17, 18. 179 


and secular. One act differs from another in degree of reli- 
gious effectiveness, but not in kind. The Apostle’s sentiment 
is the reverse of the Stoical doctrine that slavery erases from 
the soul all holy principles. Cf. M. Anton. X. 9. 

διατάσσομαι «.7.X. He says this to intimate that he has 
been stating a broad principle, not laying down an arbitrary 
regulation ; not building an imaginary republic, but repre- 
senting Christianity as the leaven of society. The word 
διατάσσομαι marks how largely the historical development 
of the Church was determined by St. Paul (cf. 2 Cor. xi. 28). 
The mid. of διατάσσω does not differ in meaning from the 
active. Cf. xvi. 1. 

Vv. 18-24, What he has to say is not only commanded to 
all the Churches, but also applicable to various cases. ‘l'wo 
applications, other than marriage, of the general principle 
that every man’s condition of life is the outward form of his 
Christian calling, are now discussed, viz. circumcision (vv. 18— 
20) and slavery (vv. 21-24). 

V. 18. περιτετμημένος tes ἐκλήθη; So Lachm., Rev. V., 
Westc. and Hort punctuate. It is better to regard it as a 
hypothetical assertion; “one who has been circumcised was 
called,—suppose the case.” Cf. Hermann, Opuse. I., De 
Ellipsi, p. 205; Bernhardy, W.S. p. 385; Bnttmann, N.S. p. 
194; Winer, Gr. § XXV.1b. So Dem., Ol. III p. 33; De 
Oor. p. 317, ἀδικεῖ τις ἑκών. . . ἐξήμαρτέ τις ἄκων (and 
κατώρθωσε in next clause is also hypoth. indic., and should 
not have a mark of interrog. any more than the other two 
clauses). Cf. James v. 13. 

ἐπισπάσθω, sc. τὴν axpoBvotiav. Hesych., μὴ éXxvétw TO 
δέρμα. The word occurs only here in this sense. Many Jews 
after the time of the Maccabees wished to be thought uncir- 
cumcised, in order either to avoid the scorn of the Greeks or 
the persecution under Antiochus Epiphanes. Cf, 1 Macc. i. 15; 
Joseph.,, Antiqg. XII. v. 1; Ewald, History of Israel, Eng. 
Trans., Vol. V. p.271. The Apostle’s word seems to convey 
the notion that Jewish Christians had adopted the practice of 
epispasmus. There is no hint elsewhere of such a thing, ex- 
cept as an inference from this passage. Hence Origen (Cut.) 
and Jerome (Adv. Jovin. I. 6 and 14, et al.) think the Apostle, 
in speaking of circumcision and slavery, is referring allegoric- 


180 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ally to marriage. But we may naturally conclude that there 
were Judaisers among the Gentile Christians and contemners 
of Judaism among Jewish Christians. We are told by Dion 
Cassius that many heathens had in this age become prose- 
lytes to Judaism, and they appear to have preferred it in its 
more rigorous forms. Some Gentile Christians too became 
Ebionites. Why may we not suppose there were Jews in the 
Church who practised epispasmus, not indeed as a condition 
of their Christian status, but from fear of scorn and shame of 
their nationality? Contact with Greek thought was to them 
the sudden revelation of a new world. In their new contempt 
of their former narrowness and exclusiveness we recognize 
some of the beginnings of Gnosticism, as it appears, for in- 
stance, in Philo’s theory that the historical religion of the Jews 
was a mere husk around the kernel of ideas. To such men 
circumcision was nothing; but for that very reason uncircum- 
cision would acquire factitious importance, and a false liberal- 
ism would be thought to be the only worthy position to assume. 
The Apostle applies to the badge of nationality his doctrine 
that all things are, not only pure, but to a Christian sacred 
and religious. He condemns false shame no less than false 
righteousness. Faithfulness to one’s own nation and age is 
as real an expression of Christian sentiment as charity and 
cosmopolitanism. 

V. 19. οὐδέν ἐστι, that is, οὐκ ὠφελεῖ (Rom. ii. 25), or οὐκ 
ἰσχύει (Gal. v. 6). So also in class. Greek. Chrysostom’s 
paraphrase, “contributes nothing to faith,” limits the refer- 
ence too much. 

τήρησις ἐντολῶν Θεοῦ, sc. πάντα ἐστιν, which is expressed 
in Col. πι. 11. Cf. Plat., Rep. p. 366 D, Stallbaum’s note. In 
such instances ἀλλά means “ much rather.’ Cf. Bernhardy, 
W.S. p. 458. The art. is omitted with τήρησις to make the 
notion as general as possible. It is obedience as such that 
has moral value. In this sense τηρεῖν is not a class. word, but 
often occurs in Scripture. Lipsius (Paul. Rechtf. p. 194) re- 
marks that it is almost a technical word for fulfilling the Mosaic 
Law. Cf. Sir. xxxv. (xxxii.) 22; Wisd. vi. 19. To the mind 
of a true Israelite obedience involved the notion of keeping 
intact the Divine deposit entrusted to the Jews (cf. Rom. iii. 
2). In Gal, y. 6 circumcision is contrasted with faith working 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VII. 19, 20. 181 


through love; in Gal. vi. 15 with the new creature; and 
here with obedience. It does not follow that faith, the new 
creaturc, and obedience are identical. The Apostle is here 
speaking of practical duties. Circumcision was at one time 
a Divine injunction, but when the Jews did what had been 
commanded, not in the spirit of obedience, but in the spirit 
of self-righteousness, their circumcision became uncircum- 
cision. It is important to observe, that, though circumcision 
and uncircumcision are in themselves indifferent, abstention 
from the one or the other may become a duty when others de- 
clare that either is not indifferent. The Apostle himself acted 
on this principle when he refused to circumcise Titus (cf. 
Gal. ii. 5). 

V. 20. The case of circumcision is summed up (cf. ver. 24). 

ἐν TH κλήσει 7 ἐκλήθη cannot mean “ let every one abide in 
the condition of life to which he was called,’”’ a rendering as 
early as the time of Tertullian (De Idol. 5), and used then by 
certain manufacturers of idols to justify their continuing in 
their craft. The relat. 4 may be governed by ἐν to be sup- 
plied from ἐν τῇ κλήσει. Cf xi. 23; Matt. xxiv. 50; and 
freq. in class. Greek, e.g. Thuc. I. 28, παρὰ πόλεσιν αἷς The 
meaning would then be, “‘ Let every one abide in that occupa- 
tion in which Christianity found him” (cf. Clem. Al., Strom. 
TIL. 12, ἕκαστος οὖν ἐν ᾧ ἐκλήθη ἔργῳ τὴν διακονίαν ἐκτελείτω), 
But κλῆσις never means “ occupation,’ “business.” It is 
not improbable that this signification was attached to the 
corresponding words in other languages in consequence of 
this interpretation of the present passage (cf. Du Cange, s.v. 
vocatio). Κλῆσις must mean “the call of the Gospel,” as al- 
ways in the New Test. (cf. Rom. xi. 29 ; Eph. iv. 1 ; Heb. iu. 1; 
2 Peter i. 10). That being so, ἦ will be either instrumental or 
by attraction for ἥν, cognate accus. with ἐκλήθη. Cf. Ellicott 
on Eph. iv. 1. In either case the meaning of the clause is the 
same: “ Let every man abide in the call of the Gospel.” But 
it is evident such an expression has no relevant meaning, 
unless the Apostle is referring also to conditions of life. In 
fact he describes circumcision and uncircumcision, slavery and 
freedom, as modes of the Divine call into the sphere of the 
spiritual life. The idea is not that the various occupations of 
life are the Divinely-appointed lot of every man, but that there 


182 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


are certain conditions of life that impart to the Christian call 
a special form. Such are the great distinctions—natural, 
national, social—on the maintenance of which, in any particular 
age or country, the preservation of the principles of hberty and 
order and their legitimate development in human _ history 
mainly depend. Cf. Gal. iii. 28, where the Apostle enumerates 
the three fundamental conceptions that at once divide and 
unite the race, that of Jew and Greek or the national distinc- 
tion, that of slave and free or the social distinction, and that 
of male and female or the physical distinction. 

V. 21. He passes to the second case that illustrates the 
bearing of Christianity on human relations. This example, 
again, is not arbitrarily chosen. For, first, slavery was a very 
conspicuous institution in the ancient world and sprang from 
the other fundamental distinctions,—the physical superiority 
of the man over the woman, the religious pre-emimence of -.Jew 
over Gentile, or else the Greek consciousness of creative politi- 
cal genius ; so that, in discussing the question of slavery, the 
Apostle not only arbitrates between master and slave, but ad- 
dresses himself to the antagonisms most deeply seated in the 
religious, political, and social condition of his time. Second, 
slavery is one of the institutions which Christianity transforms. 
At times the Apostle appears to sanction it, sometimes to pro- 
claim its entire abolition. In Christ there is neither bond nor 

‘free, and in the history of his religion the distinction between 
master and slave ceases at the door of the Church. But 
Christianity abolishes slavery by assimilating and sanctifying 
the relation of master and servant in its inmost nature. While 
it refuses to wield the sword and destroy civil institutions by 
violence, it so transforms their ruling ideas that those institu- 
tions become what they never were before. For instance, 
Christ bestows on the most degraded and despised slave who 
is a believer, spiritual endowments that cannot fail to inspire 
him with a consciousness of freedom. He ceases to be a slave 
by the very fact of knowing that in the sight of God he is 
free, and his service ceases to be a bondage because it is now 
a willing obedience to Christ.1 ‘ Deo servire,” observes 
Augustine, “ vera libertas est.” 

1 Cf. Origen, C. Cels. III. 54 : ‘Ouodoyotuev δὲ πάντας ἐθέλειν παιδεῦσαι τῷ τοῦ 


Θεοῦ λόγῳ, ὥστε. -. αἰκότριψιν ὑποδεικνύναι πῶς ἐλεύθερον ἀναλαβόντες φρίνημα 
ἐξευγενίσθειεν ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου. 


Φ 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—Vu. 21. 183 


ἐκλήθης. Cf. note on ver. 18. 

μὴ σοὶ μελέτω, “let not the fact that thou wert called to 
manifest thy spiritual life by servitude weigh upon thy mind, 
as if the liberty with which thou wert then endowed made thy 
external condition of slavery unworthy of thee.” 

ἀλλ᾽ εἰ Kal... χρῆσαι. Does this mean, “if thou canst 
become free, accept thy freedom,” or “ though thou canst be 
free, remain a slave and serve so much the more faithfully 
because thou art a Christian?” The latter is the view of 
Chrys. (μᾶλλον δούλευε, similarly Serm. 5 in Genes.), Theod., 
Pelag., Theophyl., Aquinas, icum., Phot., Herveeus, Muscul., 
Est., Bengel, Wolf, De Wette, Meyer, Maier, Alford, Stanley, 
Osiand., Baur (Theol. Jahrb. 1852, p. 26), Heinrici; the 
former that of certain persons referred to by Chrys., of 
Calvin, Grot., Neand., Hofmann, etc. Ei καί has two mean- 
ings. First, it is often opposed to καὶ ef. The latter (when 
the καί is more than a connecting particle, which it seldom is 
in the New Test.) emphasizes the condition, that is, represents 
the occurrence of the condition as doubtful; the former em- 
phasizes, not the condition, the occurrence of which is sup- 
posed to be not doubtful, but the opposition between the 
conditional and the consequent clauses. Cf. p. 105, foot-note. 
If this is the meaning of εἰ καί in our passage and we render 
it by “although,” the consequent will mean “still remain a 
slave.” Second, εἰ καί 15. also used to emphasize some words 
only in the clause. Cf. Luke xi. 18, εἰ δὲ καὶ ὁ Σατανᾶς 
διεμερίσθη, “if Satan even, so strong a potentate;” Phil. ii. 
17, εἰ καὶ σπένδομαι, “if I am offered even.” In this case 
also the meaning will be, “if thou canst be even free, still re- 
main aslave.” If the Apostle had intended the consequent 
clause not to be contrasted with the conditional clause, but to 
be homogeneous with it (‘if thou canst be free, accept thy 
freedom ’”’), he would have omitted καί, as in vv. 9 and 15, 
A contrast is, besides, more in keeping with the whole tenour 
of the passage. His advice to every man to remain in the call 
of the Gospel, whatever condition of life obedience to that call 
may assume, amounts to very little if itis to be applied ouly 
when the man is compelled to abide in his present condition. 
The Apostle’s words imply that the Christian slave is more 
likely than the free man to realize vividly his freedom in the 


184 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Lord, and, therefore, that, of the two conditions, his is the 
preferable, 

μᾶλλον χρῆσαι may mean “accept it in preference to free- 
dom,” or ‘‘apply thyself to the service so much the more be- 
cause thy master has offered thee freedom.” Cf. 1 Tim. vi. 2, 
ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον δουλευέτωσαν, “let them serve the more faith- 
fully.” This accounts the better also for the introduction of 
the clause, and the other view seems to do some violence to 
the meaning of χράομαι (cf. 1 Pet. 1. 18,19). Χρῆσθαι is a 
vo media, being used with συντυχία and εὐτυχία. The words 
ἑκὼν yap οὐδεὶς δουλίῳ χρῆται ζυγῷ (Alschyl., Agam. 922) 
express a seutiment the reverse of what the Apostle teaches; 
but they justify the use of χρῆσθαι with “slavery ”’ as well as 
with “ liberty.” 

V. 22. <A reason, not merely for not caring (Hst., etc.), 
but also for the advice to a Christian slave to remaina slave 
in preference to accepting his freedom. 

ἐν Κυρίῳ, not synonymous with ὑπὸ Κυρίου (Osiand.), nor 
used by a brachylogy for εἰς τὸ εἶναι ἐν Κυρίῳ (most exposi- 
tors), nor equivalent to κλητοὶ Χριστοῦ (Rom. i. 6, that is, that 
Christ has called and, therefore, possesses then), but marking 
“the distinctive element in which the calling has its specific 
character’? (Meyer). ‘lhe words express the constant element 
in the Christian call, in contrast to the varying elements “ cir- 
cumcised,” “in uncircumcision,” “ bond,” “free.” They im- 
ply redemption (ver. 23) and consequent possession by the 
Redeemer (ver. 22). 

ὁ ἐν Κυρίῳ κληθεὶς δοῦλος, not here “the slave called in 
the Lord” (Meyer, Alford), but “he who was called in the 
Lord as a slave”? (De Wette). The former would, of course, 
be grammatically correct, like 6 πολλὰ δὴ τλὰς ᾿Ηρακλῆς. 
But when the participle is accompanied by an adjectival phrase, 
such as ἐν τῷ Κυρίῳ, the substantive, even when it is a 


secondary predicate, often follows the participle. This avoids’ 


the danger of connecting the adjectival phrase with the 
substantive, not with the participle. In the next clause 
the secondary predicate (ἐλεύθερος) precedes the participle, 
because no adjectival phrase occurs. 

ἀπελεύθερος Κυρίου must mean more than ἐλευθερωθεὶς 
ὑπὸ Κυρίου. The slave has been freed by Christ and is in 


εν 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VII. 22. 185 


consequence Christ’s. Κυρίου and Χριστοῦ are genitives of 
possession. Cf. Rom. vi. 18. Ignatius (Ad Rom. 4) evidently 
considered that the notion of possession is contained in the 
words, when he applied them to himself: ἐὰν πάθω, ἀπελεύ- 
θερος γενήσομαι ᾿]ησοῦ Χριστοῦ Kai ἀναστήσομαι ἐν αὐτῷ 
ἐλεύθερος. 

ὁ ἐλεύθερος κληθείς, “ he who was called as a free man.” 

Putting together the two clauses of the verse we arrive at 
the following results: the Christian slave is, as to outward 
condition, still a slave, but really, as he stands before God, 
a freedman, delivered from spiritual bondage by Christ and 
trausferred into the service of Christ, which is perfect liberty ; 
the Christian freeman is in outward condition still free, but, 
in his inmost being, the slave of Christ, who acquired the 
rights of owner and master by purchasing for him moral and 
spiritual liberty from sin and death; both bond and free are, 
therefore, freemen and bondsmen ; all external conditions are 
of less importance now, inasmuch as Christ has fully revealed 
the ethical relations in which men stand before God; Christ 
has not only brought men’s moral position into stronger light, 
but also changed their moral state by His redemptive death 
from a condition of spiritual bondage into spiritual liberty ; 
lastly, the ultimate effect of redemption is to destroy slavery 
as an external condition in proportion as men learn to realize 
the nature aud greatness of the redemption wrought for all 
men by Christ. To the Apostle’s mind bondage and freedom 
are but opposite facets of the same conception. The Christian 
slave not only is free in spite of his bondage, but manifests 
his freedom by willing service and resignation. His bondage 
is the sphere within which his hberty moves in due order. 
In like manner. not only is the Christian freeman a bondsman 
of Christ notwithstanding his freedom, but his liberty is the 
field in which his Christian obedience expatiates at large. It 
is, however, to be observed that the Apostle nowhere says 
the lot of the slave is a just one! A Christian will never 
regard himself as an ἔμψυχον ὄργανον (Arist., Hth. Nie. IX. 


1 Cf. Arist., Pol. V. xi : Ὅτι μὲν τοίνυν εἰσὶ φύσει τινές οἱ μὲν ἐλεύθεροι, οἱ δὲ 
δοῦλοι, φανερόν, οἷς καὶ συμφέρει τὸ δουλεύειν καὶ δίκαιόν ἐστιν. But even in 
Aristotle’s time there were some who held that Sagem! was unjust because it is 
mapa φύσιν. ΟἿ. ib. 1. iii, 


186 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


xiii.), which is the essential idea of slavery.1 A slave was 
incapable of moral virtue. Christianity annihilates as a fact 
the natural inequality which justified slavery in the eyes of 
the Greek philosophers, and endows the slave with a capacity 
not only for morality but for the highest form of religion, a 
spirituality of life. 

It is interesting to watch the slowly but constantly growing 
influence of these principles in the early ages of the Church, 
We recognise it in the practice of manumitting slaves at 
Easter, on the Lord’s day, and at last daily; in the law of 
Constantine forbidding the owner of slaves to break up their 
families ; in the sentiment that led rich men to consider the 
education and the manumission of slaves an act of piety, and 
in the election of slaves to offices in the Church. Calixtus, 
bishop of Rome in the third century, was originally an 
οἰκέτης; and one of the charges brought against him by 
Hippolytus was that he sanctioned as a Christian marriage, 
not as a mere contubernium, the union of a woman of rank 
with a manumitted slave.” We must not, however, forget 
that a spirit akin to that of Christianity was all this time 
at work independently in Roman society. The noble efforts 
of the Antonines to relieve the condition of the slaves and 
facilitate their enfranchisement prepared men for a readier 
acceptance of Christian teaching. 

V. 28. The change to the 2nd pers. plur. shows that the 
Apostle now addresses, not the slaves nor the freemen only, 
but the whole Church. That they have been bought with a 
price is the proof that they are both the bondsmen and the 
freedmen of Christ. Liberty and service are but opposite 
sides of the same fact ; for both begin in redemption. 


1 But the meaning of ὄργανον must be modified by that of ἔμψυχον. Cf. Maine, 
Ancient Law, p. 165: ** That the inferiority of the slave was not such as to 
place him outside the family, or such as to degrade him to the footing of 
inanimate property, is clearly proved, I think, by the many traces which remain 
of his ancient capacity for inheritance in the last resort.” The later Stoies 
made an approach to the Christian doctrine when they said that moral evil 
alone was a slavery (cf. Epictet., Fragm. VIII.). But in Roman law a slave is 
not a person: nullwm caput habuit (Justin., Inst. i. 16. 4); and not before the 
reign of Hadrian did the practice excel the law, when masters were deprived of 
the power to put slaves to death without trial. 

2 The whole subject of the attitude of Christianity towards slavery is treated 
with marked ability and fairness in Lecky’s History of European Morals, Vol. 11, 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VII. 23, 24. 187 


τιμῆς ἠγοράσθητε. Cf. note on vi. 20. If the expression 
occurred only here, we might fairly consider it to be simply 
a metaphor not to be pressed into the service of any doctrinal 
scheme,—a metaphor most apt in the discussion of the ques- 
tion of slavery. But as the notion of redemption meets us 
in other passages, the subject of which is remote from the 
present question, the Apostle must have recognised a real 
analogy between the notion of slavery and liberty and that 
of the spiritual condition of men in their relation to Christ’s 
death. The forensic aspect of salvation is real, not figurative. 

μὴ γίνεσθε δοῦλοι ἀνθρώπων, “do not become by your own 
will what in Christ you are not, slaves of men.” Bengel and 
Mosheim understand the words literally as an exhortation to 
Christian freemen not to sell their civil liberty: “ΠῚ you are 
slaves, remain so; but do not become slaves.” But this 
would imply that ἠγοράσθητε refers to freemen only. It is 
much more probable that the Apostle is speaking of the in- 
ward realization of spiritual liberty. “Though you may be 
slaves in'external condition, be not slaves in spirit.” So 
Chrys., De Virgin. 41, The word “become” intimates to 
them that a slavish spirit in a Christian is the selling of a 
prerogative, which cannot be alienated but by their own 
deliberate act. Indirectly the words prove also that the 
Apostle, the slave of Jesus Christ, believed him to be more 
than man. 

\. 24. Summary of the exhortation to freemen and slaves. 

mapa Θεῷ. The thought is really implied in ver. 19. The 
Apostle has spoken of the call of the Gospel as imparting to 
circumcision and uncircumcision, civil liberty and bondage, 
their moral element. But the vigour of all moral character 
is to be found only in a realization of God. Without an 
abiding sense of His presence, Christianity itself soon sinks 
into an external round of observances or an unreal sentiment. 
The meaning is, not merely that spiritual communion with 
God will aid the Christian slave to live contented with his lot, 
but that the conviction of having obeyed a call from God in 
becoming a Christian and of living the spiritual and super- 
natural life of faith and prayer, teaches him to realize the 
sacred character of his lot in life. Paula looked up to heaven 
for strength to tear herself away from her little son as he 


188 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


stretched out his hands to her from the shore (Jerome, Ep. 
108, Ad Eustoch.), ‘The Apostle would have taught her that 
prayer will sanctify the family no less than the hermitage. 


(7) The Case of Virgins. 
(Vv. 25-38). 


V. 25. περὶ δὲ τῶν παρθένων. Theod. Mops., Bengel, 
Olshausen, etc., think the Apostle is now passing to the case of 
the unmarried. Παρθένος often means “an unmarried man ” 
in ecclesiastical writers; whence of παρθενεύοντες (Fragm. 
de Resurr. 3). But this usage probably arose from a false 
interpretation of Rev. xiv. 4, where the word is obviously 
metaphorical. Besides, the Apostle has already given his 
advice to the unmarried generally. It is much more probable 
that he means unmarried women, as in vv. 28, 29, 36, 37, and 
especially such as wished to consecrate themselves to the 
service of God. So Theophyl., ἀφιερωθεῖσαν Θεῷ. They 
may have been the precursors of the “ ecclesiastical virgins,” 
as distinguished from the monastic virgins of still later times. 
Cf. Bingham, Antiq. VII. iv. Even in the eyes of the heathen 
special honour belonged ταῖς ἐκ ναοῦ γυναιξὶ καὶ ταῖς παρ- 
θένοις. 

γνώμη, “opinion.” But in practical matters opinion is 
equivalent to advice. Of. 2 Cor. viii. 10. Theologians have 
inferred that Christians have power, not only to give adequate 
obedience to the moral law, but also to do works of superero- 
gation (cf. Petavius, Diss. Hecles. II. vi.). The distinction 
between preecepta and consilia is foreshadowed by Origen and 
Cyprian. It is explicitly stated by Ambrose, Hp. lxii. 35, 
“non enim precipitur quod supra legem est, sed magis dato 
suadetur consilio,” et al. Cf. also Augustine, De Adult. Qvnj, 
I. 14. Itis already implied in Herm. Past., Mand. 1V. 4; Sim. 
V. 3, where he speaks of ‘some good things beyond (ἐκτός) 
the commandment of God,” by doing which a man gains more 
abundant honour and is more acceptable to God. Philo even 
suggests the distinction in Leg. Alleg. pp. 57, 58. The doc- 
trine of supererogation rests on two assumptions: first, that — 
God requires in His creatures, not perfect conformity with 
moral law, but only sincerity of endeavour; second, that the 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VII, 25. 189 


actions supposed to be counselled, but not commanded, are 
moral, and not merely indifferent. But both assumptions 
destroy the essential nature of moral law, which must, in its 
very idea, be obligatory ; and whatever is not obligatory is 
no part of morality, but belongs to the class of indifferent 
things. It follows that, if the Apostle imposes no command 
but simply gives advice in reference to abstention from 
marriage, such abstention is not to be reckoned among the 
things ‘‘ quae nec sunt precepta nec indifferentia, sed Deo 
grata et ab illo commendata.” 

This distinction, however, between obligatory and supere- 
rogatory moral obedience must not be confounded, as is 
done by the Romanists and sometimes by their opponents 
also, with the distinction between precepts and counsels of 
perfection, preecepta legis et consilia evangelica, the latter so 
called from the Vulg. rendering of γνώμη in this verse. 
Melanchthon acknowledges the difference, though he rejects 
counsels of perfection no Jess than works of supererogation. 
Cf. Apol. Conf. Aug. XIII. δὲ 25 sqq. Hooker rejects the 
latter and accepts the former. Cf. Hecles. Pol. 11. viii. 5; 
similarly Davenant, Preelectiones XLIV. Counsels of perfec- 
tion differ from works of supererogation in two points: first, 
they have always reference, not to actionsin themselves moral, 
but to actions in .themselves indifferent; second, they are 
to be sought, not in the words of Christ, but in the words of 
His Apostles. Whatever Christ says in reference to practice 
is a command, which men disobey at their peril. But the 
Apostles, though they may often have authority to command, 
may also be unable on occasion to arrive at a decision and, 
therefore, rest content with the expression of an opinion, 
which Christians may, if they so judge, lay aside. The pre- 
- sent passage is an instance of this. The Spirit’s enlighten- 
ment does not lead the Apostle to a decision. He gives his 
advice, therefore, and imposes no command. We need not 
discard the name “counsels of perfection.”? There are 
undoubtedly cases in which celibacy is helpful to  spiri- 
tual progress, and other cases in which marriage is essential 
to it. 

ὡς ἠλεημένος . . . εἶναι. Olshaus., Meyer, De Wette, 
Osiand., Maier assign to miuotds a purely passive meaning: 


190 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


“as one that has received the grace of deserving your con- 
fidence.” Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 2. Ἔλεος is much more probably the 
grace of salvation and ministry. Cf.2 Cor.iv.1; 1 Tim. i. 18. 
The infin. will then express, not the content of the “ grace,” 
but its consequence, εἰς τὸ εἶναι πιστὸς (icum.). Cf. Col. 
iv. 6, εἰδέναι, “so as to know”; Heb. vi. 10, ἐπιλαθέσθαι. 
The meaning is: “1 give my advice, not frivolously nor as a 
man wise in this world, but with all the faithfulness and 
sincerity of one that has had the grace of salvation and apostle- 
ship” (cf. 2 Cor.i.18, 19). The advice is given with manifest 
reluctance. He is careful to prepare their minds for it by 
telling them that it is simply his own opinion, not the Lord’s 
command, and that, on the other hand, he has formed his 
judgment under a sense of the responsibility attaching to his 
office. In Attic the passive of ἐλέω would hardly be used, 
but ἐλέου τυγχάνειν. 

V. 26. His reluctance renders his language redundant and 
incorrect. Τοῦτο refers to no substantive expressed, but to a 
thought which he intended to express in the next clause, but 
does not; for οὕτως also refers to no antecedent. ‘There is 
also an anacoluthic repetition of τοῦτο καλόν in the form ὅτι 
καλόν. That ὅτι is not “because” (Hst., De Wette), intro- 
ducing the reason for virginity (‘because it is good to abstain 
from marriage generally ”’) is evident; for this would be in- 
consistent with the statement that the present distress had 
led the Apostle to the opinion which he is about to give. 

ἀνάγκη has been explained to mean (1) the troubles in- 
separable from marriage (Hicum., Aqnin., Herv., Calvin); 
(2) our life in the body (Orig.) or the afflictions of life (Grot.) ; 
(3) the approaching end of the world (Ambrosiast.) or, more 
particularly, the distress that would precede the second coming 
of Christ (Meyer, Maier, Osiand., etc.). The third view is 
rendered probable, first, by the word συνεσταλμένος, ver. 29; 
second, by ἀνάγκη, which sounds like a reminiscence of what 
the Apostle may have heard from Luke of the discourses in 
which Christ foretells the great distress of the latter days 
(cf. Luke xxi. 23-28). Hence ἐνεστῶσαν will mean “ im- 
pending ” (as in 2 Thess. ii. 2), not “ present” (as in iii. 22). 
In class. Greek ἀνάγκη rarely means “distress, calamity.” 


Cf. Aischyl., Prom. 111. 108, et al.; Xen., Mem. III. xiii. 2; 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VvII. 26-28. 191 


Anab. IV. v. 15. But it is common in Hellenistic Greek. 
Cf. Ps. exix. 148; Luke xxi. 238, et al. 

V. 27, δέδεσαι. Cf. note on ver. 18. Γυναικί is dat. of 
community. Cf. Rom. vii. 2; 2 Cor. vi. 15; Jelf, Gr. ὃ 590. 

λέλυσαι. Tert. (Ad Uwxor. I. 7) and others explain it of 
release from a previous marriage by the death or desertion of 
the wife. Ifso, the Apostle dissuades from a second marriage. 
But it is more probable that Origen is right in considering 
λελυμένος to be equivalent to μὴ δεδεμένος. So Phot., Est., 
De Wette, Meyer. Avw may have been used to intimate a 
deliverance from the strongest of human impulses. 

V. 28. For γήμῃς Αἱ Β read γαμήσῃς, adopted by Lachm., 
Treg., Westc. and Hort ; so that we have in this ver. the class. 
aor. γήμῃ and the later form. Ταμέω is not used of the woman 
in class. Greek. The passages in which it occurs, as Hur., 
Med. 262, are probably spurious. Whether the aor. subjunc- 
tive is a fut. or a fut. perf. depends on the context. Cf. 
Bernhardy, W.S. p. 882; Goodwin, Greek Moods, etc. p. 26. 
As the Apostle has already disposed of the case of persons 
previously married and does not after this give his opinion of 
such as would in future marry, it is better to regard the aor. 
here as a fut., not a fut. perf. The case of virgins is associated 
with that of others, in order to show that really there is no dif- 
ference between them. If virgins sin in marrying, so does a 
man; if it is because of the impending distress that it is well for 
all to abstain from marriage, it is well for virgins to do so for 
the same reason. “Hyaprtes and ἥμαρτε are gnomic aorists. 
Cf. John xv. 6; Rom. viii. 29; James i. 10, 23; 1 Pet. i. 24. 

Origen, Chrys., Jerome (Adv. Jovin. I. 7), Gicum., and 
Romanist expositors deny that the Apostle is speaking of 
virgins dedicated to the Lord’s service. But, first, he has 
already discussed the case of unmarried persons generally (ver. 
8), and there is no apparent reason why he should revert to 
the subject ; second, in ver. 34 it is said that ‘‘ the unmarried 
woman careth for the things of the Lord;” third, there are 
allusions in other Epistles to vows of abstinence from marriage, 
as in 1 Tim. v. 12, where “ the first faith”? seems to refer to 
the vow to abstain from a second marriage. In his advice to 
Timothy the Apostle dissuades the younger widows from taking 

1 A has γαμήσῃ, evidently by an oversight. 


192 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


such vows ; and as in our passage he intentionally places all 
on the same footing, we may infer that he would have equally 
discouraged vows of virginity. His mentioning the impending 
distress as a reason for abstinence proves that he cannot have 
advised virgins to abstain because the married life was morally 
a superior condition. Origen’s remark that the Apostle does 
not say, “If thou marry, thou doest well,” is inconsistent 
with ver. 38. 

θλῖψιν, another of Christ’s words in reference to the cir- 
cumstances that would presage His appearance (cf. Matt. 
xxiv. 9,21, 29). The Apostle undoubtedly applies it to the 
same events. Peace, holy joy, serene awe are the befitting 
preparations for the coming of Christ. Oris is not a class. 
word; but θλίβω (akin to τρίβω) occurs. 

σαρκί may be dat. of instrument, and σάρξ will then mean 
the lower appetites, their indulgence of which occasioned the 
tribulation. But it is more natural to consider it dat. of 
sphere or reference. 2dp& will then denote the earthly aspect 
of human nature and life, in an unethical sense, with an 
implied contrast between it and πνεῦμα, which is the spiritual 
side of the regenerate man. So of Christ, Heb. v. 7. Of. 2 
Cor. iv.1L; Gal. 1.20; .iv.18; Phil. i. 22:Col. i.) ΣΉΝ 
5. They have not sinned by marrying, and their mind and 
conscience have not been defiled (cf. Tit. i. 15). Still they 
have not “ watched ” ; their hearts have been overcharged with 
the cares of this life, and the day of the Lord comes upon 
them unawares. For the dat. of reference cf. xiv. 20; Matt. 
xi. 29; 2 Cor. ii.12. It limits the action to the flesh and so 
gives a delicate turn to the import of the verb: “they will 
find afflictions for their flesh.” 

οἱ τοιοῦτοι, not only the virgins that marry, but all that do 
not watch for the coming of the Son of Man, who consequently 
involve themselves in unbefitting cares. 

ἐγὼ δὲ ὑμῶν φείδομαι, that is, “if you follow my advice, 
you will be spared afflictions to the flesh.” Augustine (De 
Virgin. 16) explains the words to mean “I will spare you the 
enumeration of the cares of married life.” The emphatic ἐγώ 
is decisive against this, as well as against the interpretation 
of Cajetan and others: “I grant you indulgence and do not 
altogether forbid you to marry.” 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VII. 28, 29. 193 


V. 29. The reading of D, ὅτε before καιρός, is not supported 
by 8 A B Vulg., though it has the authority of Origen and 
Tertullian. If we omit ὅτε, τοῦτο must refer to what follows, 
to emphasize it, as in xv. 50, “ Whether you marry or abstain 
is a question of less importance; but this I do say, Watch.” 
The words that follow are, therefore, not intended to urge 
celibacy or virginity (Meyer). The objection that, if his pur- 
pose was to exhort Christians to watch, the words “but this 
I say” would have followed immediately after the words “he 
has not sinned,” is not of much force, inasmuch as the Apostle 
is now stating a fact, and that a fact which he could not have 
stated without revelation. Hence he uses φημί, which is 
stronger than λέγω, having the force “affirmandi cum 
suasione,” 

For the Rec. τὸ λοιπόν ἐστι we must read, with N A B, 
ἐστὶ τὸ λοιπόν. -But the punctuation is more doubtful. On 
the whole it is better to connect τὸ λούπόν with what precedes, 
not with ἵνα κτλ; for this will account for the participle 
συνεσταλμένος. “In itself the time is not short; but hence- 
forth it is to be short, because God has shortened 10. ‘The 
distinction sometimes made between λουπόν, “ finally,” and 
τὸ λοιπόν, “ henceforth,” is not correct. Cf. Phil. iii. 1; Eph. 
vi. 10. It is also doubtful that late writers observe the dis- 
tinction between τὸ λουπόν, “ for the future,” and τοῦ λοιποῦ, 
“any time in the future.” 

συνεσταλμένος is explained by Valck., Riick., Olshans., 
Neand. as meaning that the time is full of tribulation. But, 
though συστέλλειν has the metaphorical meaning of ‘ oppres- 
sing,” “ filling with consternation” (cf. Schweigh., Lew. Polyb. 
s.v.), this notion is inapplicable to a period of time. Tert., 
Chrys., Ambrosiast. give it its usual meaning, “shortened.” 
Vulg., breve. But the participle expresses more than βραχύτη: 
(Gicum.). The time has been shortened by a Divine act 
(ef. Dan. ix. 24; Mark xii. 20). That is, the length of the 
time is determined on ethical grounds. Cf. 2 Pet. iti. 12, 
hastening the coming of the day of God; Barn., Lp. IV. 3: 
“For this purpose the Lord has shortened the times and the 
days, that His beloved may hasten and come to His inherit- 
ance.” Hence καιρός will mean, primarily, the time that must 
elapse before Clirist comes. So Chrys., De Virgin. 73. Cf. 

0, 


194 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Rom. xiii. 11; and, possibly, Rom. xii. 11 (καιρῷ for Κυρίῳ). 
But to refer it also to the individual life (so Calvin, Cajet., 
Estins) is not only a pious application, bunt also a justifiable 
explanation. Christ and St. Paul regard the life of the 
individual and the life of the Church as two aspects of the 
same conception. Christianity has brought into men’s lives 
an element of responsibility and a sense of individuality and 
solitariness. It has made life more intense than it was among 
‘the Greeks, whose greatest writers are lacking in moral depth. 
A Christian has never enough of time. His life on earth is 
shortened by being linked to the life beyond. The distinction 
between χρόνος and καιρός is not to be neglected. For it is 
not shortness of duration, but certainty of conseqnences when 
the Judge appears, and the uncertainty of His approach 
though He is near, that make the Christian sentiment of 
watchfulness a stronger incentive to well-doing than the 
heathen contempt and despair of life. 

Vv. 29, 30. ἵνα depends on φημί (Beza, Hofmann), not 
on συνεσταλμένος (Meyer). For, though God’s purpose in 
shortening the time is to bring Christians into an attitude of 
watching, the Apostle mentions those particular forms of 
watchfulness which might be realized in his own or his readers’ 
experience. He begins with marriage, because the letter of 
the Corinthians referred to it. From this he passes to the 
mutually opposite and universal emotions of sorrow and joy, 
the deep springs of human character; to these he purposely 
Jinks external aspects of life, buying and using. If we can 
imagine St. Paul putting together an ethical theory after the 
manner of a Greek philosopher, we have the pith of it in this 
verse. Marriage is ranked in the same category with sorrow 
‘and joy, while all three are classed with the more external 
‘side of man’s life on earth. They are in themselves neither 
morally good nor morally bad, but indifferent; yet forming 
the raw material out of which men produce their moral good- 
ness or their moral evil. The Stoics would not have joined 
together the soul’s emotions and external conditions. The 
latter would have been described as a thing indifferent, the 
former as a defect: πᾶν μὲν yap πάθος ἁμαρτία (Plut., Virt. 
Mor. 10); and, though Cleanthes distinguished between χαρά 
and ἡδονή, the only joy he permitted was made to consist in 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VII. 29-81. 195 


‘apathy. The Apostle, on the other hand, taught that emotion 
was not to be eradicated or weakened, but that it ought to be 
regulated and harmonized. ‘The nearness and uncertainty of 
the time of Christ’s coming is the regulative element in the 
Christian life. It checks excessive joy, tempers the anguish 
of sorrow, and determines the right mean in the use of earthly 
goods. But it also deepens joy and sorrow, and unites both 
in one joy of sadness, sadness of joy. Pagan life was shallow 
in the great emotions of the human spirit. No man rejoices, 
no man sorrows, as the Christian who lives in expectation of 
Christ. Excess is prevented, not by the diminution of joy or 
sorrow, but by the harmony of both. 

V. 31, κατέχοντες, “possessing,” as in 2 Cor. vi. 10. 
Καταχρώμενοι may mean either (1) “using wrongly,” as in 
Plat., Menex. 247 A, or (2) “using fully,” “to the uttermost,” 
as in Clem. Al., Ped. I. p. 142 Potter, πάσῃ καταχρώμενος 
σοφίας μηχανῇ. But here the former signification would de- 
stroy the symmetry of this series of antitheses, in which he 
is contrasting what is right, not with what is in itself wrong, 
but with what is wrong because the time has been shortened. 
Cf. Theophyl., περίττως χρῆσθαι. When Christ comes they 
will neither marry nor give in marriage; therefore let those 
who are now married assimilate their present condition as 
closely as may be to that future state, by caring for the things 
of the Lord, how they may please the Lord, and being as holy 
(that is, as consecrated) in soul and spirit as the unmarried 
Christian is, Again, as to the emotions of sorrow and joy, a 
philosopher may condemn every the least degree of either, or 
discover that their danger lies in excess and their goodness in 
a mean. But the Apostle, judging both in the light of Christ’s 
speedy return, teaches that Christians may weep much and 
greatly rejoice. But let them regard their sorrows as being 
also joys, and their joys as being also sorrows. Spiritual 
greatness of character demands the union of surpassing joy 
and profoundest sorrow. Watching for the coming of Christ 
is more than anything else calculated to unite and deepen both. 
Finally, the sum total of the actions that constitute the 
business of human society and are designated ‘the world” 
consists in buying (or selling), on the one hand, using and ac- 
cumulating, on the other. But it is the desire of accumyating 


196 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


and the need of using that confer on all the transactions of 
the world their reality and worth. Now this sense of reality 
in worldliness is just what the Apostle wishes to remove. He 
finds its solvent in the expectation of Christ’s speedy return. 
Christians that watch for their Lord’s coming will buy to use, 
not to possess. But from this arises an opposite danger, that 
of over-using the world. Watching for Christ’s return will 
deliver them from this temptation also, by making all eager 
pursuits of the world unreal as the acting of a play, when the 
curtain falls. 
κόσμον. So NABD, adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., 
Weste. and Hort. Koop must have been a copyist’s attempt 
to improve the grammar. Several examples of accus. after 
χρῆσθαι are given by Palm and Rost. But most of them, even 
in late Greek, are doubtful or explicable on other grounds 
The use of the adverbial accus. with χρῆσθαι in class. writers 
(e.g. Thuc. II. 15, ἄξια ἔχρωντο) prepared the way for it and 
for the objective accus. after compounds of χρῆσθαι in Plutarch, 
Lucian and other late writers. In Hellenistic Greek the ex- 
amples are few and more or less doubtful ; 6... in Wisd. vii. 14 
Tisch. retains dv of χρησάμενοι, which some change into 
κτησάμενοι. In Acts xxvii. 17 C reads βοηθείας ἔχρωντο. 
Buttmann’s suggestion (N. 5. p. 157), therefore, that the object 
of χρώμενοι is attracted into the accus. by καταχρώμενοι, 
which in ix. 18 itself governs the dat., is scarcely necessary. 
Tapaye.... τούτου. Recent expositors consider παράγει 
to be used for the fut., to denote the nearness of the end. Cf. 
Buttmann, VN. 8.p.177. The older expositors think the refer- 
ence is to the transitoriness of the world. This seems to me 
correct. The danger of worldliness lies in its fascination. It 
has the power of making men believe that the present is the 
only reality and that spiritual things are a dream. In the 
previous clause the Apostle has taught Christians to regard it 
as unreal,and now compares the world to the acted scenes of a 
play. Its fascination is that of the theatre; but its unreal na- 
ture betrays itself in the shifting of the scenes. He appeals to 
their own observation: “For behold how the scene changes!” 
Every change proves that the end will come. This is a legiti- 
mate application of the transitoriness of earthly things. It is 
‘abused only if we descend to details aud infer from particular 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VvIL. 61-33. 197 


changes the approach of the end, as is done by Cyprian, Ad 
Demetr.: “scire debes senuisse jim mundum, non illis viribus 
stare quibus prius steterat.” ‘The Apostle’s argument goes 
only so far as to deny the theory of an eternal series of changes 
or that “all is mutable save mutability.” In the moral as in 
the natural world movement implies a future crisis. When 
the Apostle wrote, the state of society was one of intense 
strain. But the tension, which led heathen moralists to despair 
of humanity, made the ear of the Christian quick to catch the 
sound of his coming Lord. The view that παράγει is synony- 
mous with συνεσταλμένος leaves γάρ altogether purposeless. 
ITapayew is not used in the sense of “ passing away ” in class. 
Greek. But to render it by “deceives” (Cajetan, etc.) intro- 
duces a notion foreign to the purport of the passage. “The 
world” is understood by most expositors in a physical sense, 
the sum total of the material universe. But it is better to 
explain it in both clauses of human life on earth, as in 1 John 
ii. 17. Diisterdieck is not justified in saying that St. John 
alone speaks of the world in an ethical sense. 

σχῆμα, “fashion,” always denotes an external semblance 
and, consequently, of itself involves some change. Cf. Theod. 
on 2 Cor. iii. 18, τὸ δὲ σχῆμα εὐδιάλυτον χρῆμα. “ He shows 
that every human thing exists in fashion only and glides by us 
as a shadow and a dream ”’ (Chrys., Hom. 35 in.Genes.). The 
allusion to theatrical spectacles ts certain. The word implies 
their unreal nature. . 

Vv. 32-34, A second reason for abstention from marriage. 
The first was the near approach of Christ’s kingdom; the 
second is the need of deyotedness to Christ’s work; and the 
former lends urgency to the latter. 

V. 32. He has said that he wishes them to be free from 
care on the eve of the great distress. But this freedom from 
care consists in caring for the work ofthe Lord. A happy 
paradox. Care has two sides. The one is devotedness; the 
other is distraction. He who cares for the things of Christ 
concentrates his thoughts on one purpose; he who cares for 
the things of the world is distracted between the world and 
Christ. 

' V.383. Those things by doing which a man pleases the Lord 
are the Lord’s, but those things by doing which a man pleases 


198 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


his wife are said to be, not the wife’s, but the world’s. Acts 
belong to the heavenly or to the earthly order of things, and 
that according to the motive of the doer. But two things 
characterize motives,—sincerity aud depth. Of two equally 
sincere actions, the one may be a fuller and more adequate 
exponent of a man’s spiritual nature than the other. On this 
distinction a great part of Christian self-denial rests. 

V. 34. The reading is very doubtful. But καί must be: 
inserted before μεμέρισται from NAB Ὁ, and καί must be 
‘inserted before ἡ γυνή from NAB. Probably, but not 
certainly, ἡ ἄγαμος ought to be inserted after γυνή from δὲ A B. 
So Vulg., tnnuptu. Jerome (Adv. Jovin. I. 13) says that, 
though the Lat. MSS. omit it, other authorities prove it to be 
apostolicee veritatis. But Tert. (De Virg. Vel. 4), Chrys., Basil 
(De Virg. 17) omit it. After παρθένος δὲ A insert ἄγαμος. B 
omits it; so Vulg. and all the early Greek and Latin Fathers. 
The weight of evidence is against it. The meaning of the 
passage will depend on the question whether καὶ μεμέρισται 
is to be connected with what precedes or with what follows. 
This, again, depends on the insertion or omission of ἡ ἄγαμος 
after γυνή. For, if they are omitted, γυνή means a married 
woman, and cannot, therefore, be the subject of μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ 
Κυρίου. In that case ἡ γυνή and ἡ παρθένος will be subjects 
of μεμέρισται: “And the wife and the virgin differ.’ So 
De Wette, Meyer, Osiander, Baur (Theol Juhrb., 1852, p. 18), 
Maier, Alford. The next verse will then explain how they 
differ. But the sing. μεμέρισται is an objection to this 
rendering. Meyer defends it on the ground that the verb 
precedes the two subjects and that γυνή and παρθένος together 
include the female sex as a whole. But the Apostle’s purpose 
is not to regard them as a complex whole, but the reverse. 
He wishes to state in what they differ, and this makes the 
rule as to the use of the sing. inapplicable to the passage. 
Cf. Bernhardy, W.S. p. 416. If, on the other hand, we read 
ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἄγαμος we must join καὶ μεμέρισται with what 
precedes. I accept, therefore, Lachmann and Tregelles’ punc- 
tuation: ὁ δὲ γαμήσας μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ κόσμου, πῶς ἀρέσῃ 
τῇ γυναικὶ, καὶ μεμέρισται: καὶ ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἄγαμος καὶ ἡ 
παρθένος μεριμνᾷ τὰ τοῦ Kupiov. “Ῥαῦ he who has married 
careth for the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VII. 33-35. 199 


and he is distracted; and the unmarried woman and the virgin 
cares for the things of the Lord.”” So Estius, Neander, Hof- 
mann, Westc. and Hort. ΜΜεμέρισται will then mean, “is 
divided in his interests,” “is distracted.’ Cf. Matt. xii. 25, 
βασιλεία μερισθεῖσα καθ᾽ ἑαυτῆς. ‘The unmarried woman” 
will mean the virgin, the widow, and the wife whose husband 
has deserted her. The sing. μεριμνᾷ is used because the two 
.subjects form one complex notion, καί meaning ‘‘and to 
particularise.” 

iva ἢ ayia. He does not mean that the unmarried woman 
is morally purer than the married woman. For, first, he has 
already said that marriage is not a sin (ver. 28; cf. 1 Pet. iii. 
5); second, the words are evidently an expansion of “ how she 
may please the Lord,” and denote, therefore, consecration to~ 
the Lord’s service; third, the indwelling Spirit of God makes 
the body of every believer a holy temple (cf. iii. 17; 1 Thess. 
v. 23). Augustine (De Bono Conj. xi. and xii.) gives the 
correct explanation, that the virgin has greater singleness of 
purpose in the Lord’s service. On the dichotomy of σῶμα and 
πνεῦμα cf. note on v.38. On the dat. of reference, σώματι, 
πνεύματι, cf. note on ver. 28. 

V. 35. This question of marriage is, however, to be decided 
according to its bearing on the spiritual advancement of each. 
As touching other matters the Apostle lays strict injunctions 
on the Churches (ver. 10), but this is not one of them. 
Devotedness to the Lord and spiritual growth coincide. 

βρόχον, “noose,” a metaphor taken from the chase, not 
from war. Philo (De Vita Mos. III. p. 691) alludes to the 
custom of throwing the lasso to catch the enemy. But the 
Apostle’s purpose is to assure the Corinthians that he has 
no wish to deprive them of liberty to marry, Some expositors 
think the word means “a snare” (παγίς), as if the Apostle 
meant to say that he has no wish to give them occasion to 
fall into the sin of incontinence by abstaining from marriage. 
This is not likely, though the word does sometimes mean 
* snare ” in late Greek. 

εὐπάρεδρον. SoN ABD. Εὐπρόσεδρον crept into the text 
because εὐπώρεδρον occurs nowhere else. Cf. Ignat., Ad Fol. 
6, ὡς Θεοῦ οἰκόνομοι καὶ πάρεδροι καὶ ὑπηρέται. The meaning 
is that they also serve who only stand and “ wait.” 


200 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ἀπερισπάστως, “without distraction,” a frequent expression 
among the later Stoics, as the opposite of παρέργως. Cf. 
Kpictet. III. 22, “he onght to be without distraction wholly 
given to the service of God.” Theodoret incorrectly explains 
it by διηνεκῶς, “ continually,” in accordance with the monastic 
tendency of his time. Hesych., ἀμερίμνως, ἀφροντίστως. ‘The 
remarkable similarity between the passage and Luke’s account 
of Mary and Martha (Luke x. 38-42) has not escaped the 
notice of expositors. Evdmadgedpov reminds us of παρακαθισᾶσα, 
ἀπερισπάστως of περιεσπῶτο, μεριμνᾷ of μεριμνᾷς Kat τυρβάζῃ. 

Vv. 86-38. He has urged abstinence from marriage with 
a view to what is seemly. But cases may arise in which such 
abstention appears to the persons concerned to be unseemly 
and sometimes really is so. In such cases let them marry. 

V. 86. αὐτοῦ, the father of the virgin, as is evident from 
ver. 38, though ἡ παρθένος αὐτοῦ in the sense of “ maiden 
danghter” is not a very usual expression. In Soph., id. 
Tyr. 1462, Cilipus speaks of his daughters as παρθένοιν 
ἐμαῖν. 

ἀσχημονεῖν may be passive, “that he incurs shame,” as 
in Deut. xxv. 8. So Chrys. (De Virgin. 78), Grot., Kupke, 
Neander, Hofmann. The active meaning (“to put to shame”) 
is apparently not classical. But isis the better meaning here ; 
for ἐπί with accus. will express the direction of the verbal 
notion. [Ὁ 15 a more difficult question in what the unseemli- 
ness of the father’s action consists. Chrys., Theod., ‘Theophyl., 
Beza, Estius think the reference is to the disgrace supposed 
by Jews and Gentiles to attach to the unmarried state; Meyer, 
De Wette, Hodge, Kling, to the danger of the maiden being 
tempted into sin. The words ἐὰν ἢ ὑπέρακμος favour the 
former view. For they mean, not “if she be of full age” 
(Alford), but “if she have passed her bloom.” ‘he class. 
synon. of ὑπέρακμος is παρακμάζω. Of. Arist., Phet. 111. 10, 
ὑπερήμεροι TOV γάμων ai παρθένοι. It is the age which follows 
the μέτριος χρόνος ἀκμῆς, which, according to Plato, Rep. p. 
460, begins at twenty in the case of females. In Sir. xlii. 9 
the father is described as losing his sleep with anxiety lest his 
daughter pass the flower of her age unmarried. On the other 
hand, ὀφείλει is too strong an expression, unless we can com- 
bine both views. The Apostle probably has in his mind the 





MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VII. 35-37. 901 


father’s sentiment and the daughter’s danger, arising, perhaps, 
from its being an enforced abstinence. These will correspond 
to the two opposite suppositions stated in the next verse, that 
the father is steadfast and unmoved by the general opinion of 
the age respecting the unseemliness of being unmarried, and 
that there is no real necessity for the daughter’s marriage 
arising from peculiar circumstances in the case. 

ποιείτω, permissive imperat. Cf. note on ver. 2. Γαμείτω- 
σαν, the virgin and her wooer. Wolf and Neander think 
the subject is virgins. This is grammatically admissible. 
Cf. 1 Tim. v. 4, where Chrys. supplies yxpau as subject of 
μανθανέτωσαν from τις χήρα. 

V. 37. ‘The opposite case is that of a father refusing to give 
his daughter in marriage. He earns the praise of welldoing, 
provided, first, he is steadfast in his resolve; second, he is 
free from constraint ; third, he has authority to give effect to 
his wish; fourth, he obeys the spontaneous promptings of his 
own heart. First, by “firmness” we are to understand free- 
dom from vacillation. The three words, “ stands,” “ heart,” 
“stable,” express the same notion of firmness. For ἑστηκέναν 
is “" to stand fast,” asin xv. 1; καρδία is the inmost spring 
of purpose, as in Acts xi. 23; and ἑδραῖος contains the meta- 
phor of a house and combines in its signification the special 
meanings of reGewedtwpévos and ἀμετακένητος (cf. Col. i. 23). 
This steadfastness of purpose is in contrast to fear of shame. 
It is the firmness that does not bend to the opinions of the 
day nor yield to national sentiment at the cost of sacrificing 
a higher good. Second, freedom from external restraints is in 
contrast to the words ‘* ought so to be.” The Apostle is sup- 
posing that there are no circumstances, such as his daughter’s 
incontinence would be, that make it incumbent on the father 
to give his daughter in marriage. For ἀνώγκη of external 
compulsion cf. Luke xiv. 18. Third, the words ἐξουσίαν. ., 
θελήματος suppose the father to be a freeman, ἐξούσιαν denot- 
ing civil rights. The change of construction from ἔχων to ἔχει 
and the anacoluthon that arises from the omission of εἰ occur 
fequently in the New Test., sometimes in class. Greek. Cf. 
Xen., Cyr. VIII. ii. 24. In reference to a father’s authority 
over his children at this time we must not forget that Corinth 
was politically a Roman city. Though there was ample time 


902 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE COTINTHIANS. 


during the hundred years that had elapsed since Julius Caesar 
had founded the Colonia Julia Coriuthus for Greek thought 
to leaven Corinthian society, the political institutions of the 
place would still be essentially Roman, even apart from the 
diffusion of the old Patria Potestas at this time “ into every 
corner of the Empire” (Maine, Ancient Law, p. 114). On the 
other hand, it would be in such a place as Corinth that the 
stringency of the Roman law of persons would be relaxed. 
The veterans and the freedmen, who composed the colony, 
would be the men whom we should expect to find losing their 
entire authority over the persons of their children or retaining 
it in a very mitigated form. The military class had been 
themselves practically free from the action of the Patria 
Potestas when they served as legionaries, and a libertinus, 
who had not become a Roman citizen, had the same political 
status as a Latinus, that is, he had no Patria Potestas what- 
ever over his children. Cf. Justinian, Institutes, Sander’s Ed. 
I.v. We may safely infer that there were some besides slaves 
in the Corinthian Church, that had not the ἐξούσια presup- 
posed by the Apostle. Fourth, it must be the resolve of his 
own (ἐδίᾳ) heart, free from that undue influence which would 
mar its moral worth. 

The whole description belongs to times far different from 
our own, and, in its present form, is not applicable to men 
whose life is moulded by freer social sentiments and more 
complex political ideas. Yet mutatis mutandis the words are 
true and practically important in every age. If a person 
wishes to abstain from marriage that he may wholly devote 
himself to the work of the Lord, he must have these quali- 
fications: steadfastness of purpose, freedom from any moral 
obligations to marry, freedom from civil restraints, a genuine 
desire in his inmost heart as opposed to the promptings of 
another. Whoever abstains from domestic joys and sorrows 
in order to serve the Lord without distraction, and does not 
infringe any of these conditions, not only does not sin, but 
even does well. Cf. ver. 36. 

τοῦτο is the object of κέκρικεν, and τηρεῖν is explanatory of 
τοῦτο. Meyer defends τοῦ τηρεῖν, and it certainly is the more 
difficult reading. But as & AB omit tod, Lachm., Tisch., 
Westc. and Hort do right in rejecting it, though κρίνω may 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VII. 37-39. 203 


take infin. genit., as in Acts xxvii.1. For the infin. without 
the art. to explain τοῦτο, cf. Barn., Τρ. 1. 4, εἰς τοῦτο Kayo 
ἀναγκάζομαι, ἀγαπᾶν ὑμᾶς. So Plat., Rep. p. 351, τοῦτο ἔργον 
ἀδικίας, μῖσος ἐμποιεῖν. 

τηρεῖν means, not merely “to keep her from marrying” 
(Alford), nor ‘‘ to keep her at home in her father’s service,” 
but ‘‘ to keep intact in what he believes to be the best state.” 
Cf. 1 Pet. i. 4; Rev. xvi. 15. She is consecrated by her father 
to the Lord’s service. 

V.38. After ὁ γαμίζων 8 A read τὴν ἑαυτοῦ παρθένον, Β D 
τὴν παρθένον ἑαυτοῦ. NABD Vulg. read καὶ ὁ μή. But we 
are not justified in inferring (De Wette, Meyer, Winer, Gr. 
§ LUI. 4) that the Apostle had intended writing καλῶς, not 
κρεῖσσον, in the second clause. For he has already ascribed 
some superiority to the father who does not give his daughter 
in marriage, by saying that he did well, while of the father 
who allowed his daughter to marry he says only that he did 
not sin. 

Vv. 39,40, He has mentioned the case of virgins and 
that of widows in ver. 94. In vv. 36-38 he states his opinion 
respecting the former; he now states his opinion respecting 
the latter. 

V. 39. NABD Vulg. omit νόμῳ. So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., 
Westc. and Hort. Reiche defends it. The word probably 
crept in from Rom. vi. 2 and is as much out of place here as 
it is appropriate there. In our passage the Apostle is stating 
the Christian doctrine, not the Mosaic law. The object of the 
verse is to check any desire on the part of married women 
to leave their husbands in order to devote themselves to the 
work of the Lord, the doctrine afterwards taught by Mon- 
tanus, ὁ διδάξας λύσεις γάμων. Cf. Eus., H. Η. V.18. The 
Apostle does not here touch upon the right of the wife to 
seek divorce for the cause of fornication. 

κοιμηθῇ, at first simply an easy euphemism for death (ef. 
Hom., Il, ii. 241; Soph., Hl. 499). It is used in the Old Test. 
of Rehoboam as well as of Moses and David (cf. Deut. xxxi. 
16; 1 Kings xi. 21; 2 Chron. xii. 16, LXX ἀπέθανε). Christ 
appropriated it toa higher use (John xi.11), and it conveys 
to the Christian mind the doctrine of the resurrection. Cf. 
Chrys., Hom. 29 in Genes.; Aug., T’ract. in Johan. xi. 11. In 


204 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Rom. vii. 2, where he discusses the general question, the 
Apostle uses the more direct expression, “if her husband 
die ;”’ here his words will have a practical bearing on some 
of his readers and he uses the more tender and Christian 
expression. 

γαμηθῆναι, late Greek (Plutarch, etc.) for γαμεθῆναι. The 
Apostle permits second marriages. He adopts and sanctions 
the established law. Tertullian (Ad Uwor. I. 7), in defending 
the Montanists, who forbade second marriages, not only to 
bishops, but to all Christians, parries the natural inference to 
be drawn from the Apostle’s words in two ways: First, our 
life dates from our second birth—a notion borrowed from 
Tertullian by the author of the treatise “De Vita Contem- 
plativa,”’ who says the Therapeutze reckoned seniority according 
to the time of admission into the Society—and the Apostle 
speaks of a woman whose husband was dead when she became 
a Christian. Second, even if the Apostle permits second 
marriages, he tolerates them because of the weakness of the 
flesh ; and as Christ abrogated what Moses had, by reason of 
men’s hardness of heart, permitted, similarly the Paraclete 
may abrogate what St. Paul has allowed. Cf. De Monog. xi. 
and xiv. There is an evident allusion to this ver. in Herm. 
Past., Mand. IV. 4, where, however, the disapproval of second 
marriages is more pronounced (as it certainly is in ecclesiastical 
writers generally) than in our passave or in 1 Tim. v. 14. 

ἐν Κυρίῳ. ert. (C. Mare. V. 7), Cyprian (Test. ii. 62), 
Jerome (Hp. exxii, Ad Averuch. 5), Cor. a Lap., Est., Grot., 
Beugel, Olshaus., De Wette, Meyer, etc., explain the words 
to mean that she is not permitted to marry an unbeliever. 
Chrys., Theod., Theophy]., Calvin, Neand., Osiand., ete., think 
they mean that she must marry in the spirit and with the 
motives of a Christian. Augustine (De Conj. Adult. 25) says 
he does not remember a passage in the New ‘Test. forbidding, 
in unambiguous terms, Christians to marry unbelievers, His 
mother Monica had married a heathen. The words ᾧ ἐθέλει 
are favourable to the former view, but the latter is more to the 
point. Ifa widow marries, let her do so with the same motives 
with which another remains unmarried. Let their lives be 
within the sphere of the Lord’s work. In Rom. xvi. 2, the 
phrase “in the Lord” is explained by ‘‘ worthy of saints.” 





, 


τῷ "ὍΝ 


MARRIAGE AND CELIBACY.—VIl. 89, 40. 205 


Cf. Ignat., Ad Pol. 5, ἵνα ὁ γάμος 4 κατὰ Κύριον, καὶ μὴ κατ᾽ 
ἐπιθυμίαν. 

V. 40. Μακάριος sometimes means “fortunate” (Acts 
xxvi. 2), but usually has the higher meaning of “ blessed.” 
Here it cannot refer to external prosperity (Erasm., Grot.), for 
the statement is too general and unqualified; and it must not 
be restricted to the future blessedness of heaven (Tert., De 
Cast. 4: “erit”’?). It denotes the blessedness of entire con- 
secration to the work of the Lord. In 1 Tim. v. 14 very 
different advice is given the younger widows. But after the 
Apostolic age the Church regarded second marriages with 
displeasure. Athenagoras calls them εὐπρεπὴς μοιχεία, and 
Origen asserts, somewhat hesitatingly, that they exclude from 
the kingdom of God (Hom. 17 in Luc.). In a.p. 314 the Synod 
of Neo-Czsarza forbade a priest to sit at table at a second 
marriage. Cf. also Apost. Const. VI. 17. 

δοκῶ. Some infer from Gal. ii. 9 that δοκῶ ἔχειν here 
means “I certainly have.” So Lee, Inspiration, Lect. VI. 
But of δοκοῦντες means “those who have the repute of being 
pillars.” Δοκῶ always implies an opinion, either true or false, 
either one’s own or another’s; and, as we cannot suppose the 
Apostle means that he had the reputation of having the Spirit, 
we must render δοκῷ “I think.” This use of δοκῷ is common 
in Ionic prose and reappears in later Greek, but the usual 
phrase in Attic would have been δοκῶ μου. But it may still 
be explained in one of two ways. Chrys., Est., Alford, etc., 
consider it to be a modest way of asserting a claim to Divine 
inspiration and authority. It is difficult to see that an am- 
bassador gives any proofs of modesty by saying, “JI think I 
have my sovereign’s authority.” Augustine (Tract. in Johan. 
XXXVII.), Meyer, De Wette, etc., consider the word to be 
ironical,—a strong asseveration being couched in terms ex- 
pressing a doubt, as οἶμαι is often used by Plato “ asseverandi 
vi” (Ast, Lewx.). But this is unnatural. The word is quite 
appropriate. The Apostle has given his opinion. But an 
opinion is the result of thought. The guidance of the Spirit 
in the formation of the opinion does not destroy the man’s 
consciousness of mental effort; otherwise the judgment is only 
a revelation. But this implies that his knowledge also of his 
own inspiration is, not a revelation, but the result of thought. 


206 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


His conviction that he has the guidance of the Spirit may be 
equal in degree in both cases, but it is different in kind. But 
the words seem to have a further reference than to the 
Apostle’s inspiration as a writer. He presents himself to their 
notice as an example of a Christian that has been guided aright 
through the besetting difficulties of life. Since his conversion 
he has hearkened to the voice of God within. To this secret 
of prayer and trust he ascribes his victory. On a retrospect 
of his own history he infers that he has been guided by the 
Spirit of God. 

κἀγώ, “1 also” no less than other teachers, no less than all 
Christians who hear the voice of God and obey it. Hilgen- 
feld’s suggestion that the others were inspired prophets who 
cried λύσατε τοὺς γάμους, ἤγγικε yap ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν, 
is, therefore, unnecessary. 

πνεῦμα Θεοῦ ἔχειν is not synon. with νοῦν Χριστοῦ ἔχειν 
(ii, 16). In ii. 12 possession of the Spirit is set forth as the 
cause of the believer’s having the mind of Christ, and in 
Rom. viii. 9 the indwelling of the Spirit in every believer is 
explained to mean that every believer has the Spirit of Christ. 
Hence, in the present passage also, the words do not neces- 
sarily convey the notion of a special revelation or mean that 
the Apostle, in declaring his judgment as to second marriages, 
was “borne along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. i. 21) and 
impelled to the utterance of what he did not understand (ef. 
i Pet. 2./10,.11), 


FOURTH DIVISION. 


EATING MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS. 
(viii. 1-xi. 1). 


The public and private life of ancient Greece and Rome was 
bound up with religion. The hearth-stone was an altar at 
which worship was paid to departed ancestors, and the city 
was in idea the family on a large scale, with its own presiding 
divinity. House and garden would be studded with statues of 
the gods. Most banquets would be, like Agathon’s, sacrificial 
feasts. Cf. Philo, De Plant. Noé, p. 354 Vol. I. Hd. Mang; 
Tert., De Idol. 9 sqq. From the earliest times, as we know 
from Homer (JI. I. 457 sqq., et al.), it was usual to burn in 
sacrifice the legs of the animal, enclosed in fat, and the intes- 
tines. The remainder, being thus sanctified, was given back 
to the worshipper and either eaten by -him and his family 
or sold in the public shambles. The antipathy of Jews and 
Christians to idolatry would naturally attach itself to all its 
surroundings, especially to the festive meals at which meat 
offered to an idol was eaten. It required a very broad and 
profound conception of the nature of morality to discover or 
even admit that “ not that which goeth into the mouth defileth 
aman” (Matt. xv. 11). The Apostles even had not under- 
stood this truth, though Christ had revealed it, until facts 
taught it them at the Council of Jerusalem and before. St. 
Paul was the first of the Apostles to recognise the difference 
between principle and rule, between moral and ceremonial 
defilement, between the abiding nature of holiness and the 
transitoriness of ritual cleansing. But it is not a just repre= 
sentation of what took place at the Council to describe the 
_ Apostles as decreeing abstention from meat offered to idols 


because they still believed that eating such food was forbidden 
207 


208 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


in the Mosaic law; for they permit freedom in other matters 
equally forbidden by Moses. Besides, as Paul assented to the 
decree, it would be nothing less than a breach of faith on his 
part afterwards to ignore it. Indeed, it is only in so far as it 
becomes an occasion to the weak to fall into the sin of 
fornication that the risen Christ forbids in his letters to the 
Churches of Pergamus and Thyatira (Rev. ii. 14, 20) the eating 
of sacrificial meats. 

The views of subsequent times may be briefly indicated. 
In the age immediately succeeding that of the Apostles the 
orthodox were strict abstainers from sacrificial meats, and 
eating them was one mark of a heretic. The “Didache” says: 
ἀπὸ τοῦ εἰδωλοθύτου λίαν πρόσεχε: λατρεία yap ἐστι Θεῶν 
νεκρῶν. Justin Martyr abstained, while the Gnostics took part 
even in the idol feasts. Of. Just. M., Dial. δ. Tryph. 38; 
Iren., Adv. Her. I. vi. 3; Tert., Apol. 9. We cannot suppose 
that these Fathers were conscious of being in opposition to 
the Apostle. The explanation is that in times of persecution 
tasting the wine of the libations or eating meat offered to idols 
was understood to signify recantation of Christianity. The 
subsequent history is chiefly of interest because it shows the 
difference between the Greek and the Latin Churches. For 
the decree of the first Council of Jerusalem was confirmed at 
the Council of Gangra (? a.p. 8362-370) ; and the second Trullan 
Council (a.p. 692) forbade the eating of things that had 
been strangled, but its cecumenical authority was not ac- 
knowledged by the Western Church. The view of the Latin 
Church is given by Augustine, who considered that the decree 
of the Council of Jerusalem was only of temporary application, 
because Christ condemned “nullam cibi naturam, quam so- 
cietas admittit humana, sed quz iniquitas committit peccata ” 
(Contra Faust. XXXII. 18). 

The Apostle’s discussion of the subject may be thus divided: _ 
A. A statement of the two opposite Christian conceptions of 
liberty and love (ch. viii.) B. Their reconciliation exemplified 
in the Apostle’s own conduct (ch. ix.). Οὐ. The temptations to 
sin to which the Corinthian Christians would expose them- 
selves, as the Israelites had done, by taking part in the idol- 


1 The reason given in Rev. ii. 14, is noteworthy ; for it has been alleged that 
the reproach of being a Balaam is directed against St. Paul. 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—vIrll. 1. 209 


feasts (x. 1- 14). D. Partaking of the idol-feasts inconsistent 
with coming to the Lord’s Supper (x. 15-22). HE. A practical 
summary (x. 23-xi. 1). 


A. A Statement of the two opposite Christian Conceptions 
of Inberty and Love. 


(viii. 1-13.) 


V.1. δέ, transitional. The Apostle enters on another of 
the casuistical questions of the Corinthian Church, and intro- 
duces the discussion with περί. Cf. vii. 1; xii. 1. 

The repetition of περὶ δὲ τῶν εἰδωλοθύτων in ver. 4 shows 
that a parenthesis intervenes between the beginning of ver. 1 
and ver. 4, though, as we shall see, we must seek here the basis 
of the discussion. But does the parenthesis begin with ὅτι 
πάντες γνῶσιν ἔχομεν or with ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ If we adopt 
the former view, ὅτο in ver. 1 must be rendered “ because,” 
while in ver. 4 it means “that,” and yet ver. 4 seems to be 
resumptive of ver.1. The fact is, the οὔδαμεν in ver. 4 is 
resumptive, not of οἴδαμεν, but of γνῶσιν ἔχομεν in ver. 1. 
But, if so, οἴδαμεν in ver. 1 is really meaningless, unless we 
translate 6ts by “because.” Why should the Apostle say 
“we know that we know”? In his answer to every one of 
the casuistical questions put to him by the Corinthians, he 
begins with an allusion to their and his degree of spiritual 
judgment and knowledge. For instance, as touching the 
question of marriage, he gives an opinion and tells his readers. 
that he does not know for certain. Again, in reference to the 
man’s headship over the woman, he claims that he knows and 
that his readers do not (xi. 3). Similarly, he wishes to give 
them fuller knowledge of the nature of the spiritual gifts, but 
admits that they know something (xii. 1-3). Once more, the 
place occupied in the Gospel by the doctrine of the resurrec- 
tion he reveals to them who have no knowledge of it (xv. 1). 
For this reason I think Wolf, Bengel, Olshausen and Maier 
are right in rendering ὅτι in ver. 1 ““ because.’”’ Wycliffe has 
“for.” Whatever doubt the Apostle may have felt in refer- 
ence to the subject of marriage, he knows what to say on the 
question of eating sacrifivial meats; for all have knowledge 

P 


910 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


touching this matter. I take it to be an allusion to the other 
Apostles and their decree at the Council of Jerusalem. Even 
when they forbade the Gentile converts to eat things offered 
unto idols, they did so because they saw that partaking of 
idol-feasts was one of the sorest temptations to fornication 
that would beset Cliristians in the heathen cities of that age. 
They acknowledged that ceremonial cleansing and abstinence 
from sacrificial meats was not in itself essential to salvation, 
inasmuch as all are saved through faith. That is, they had 
knowledge. But they had also love. For they enjoined 
Christians to abstain from what is not per se a moral evil, 
for the sake of the weak. We have no need of the arbitrary 
shifts with which some have tried to shun the difficulty of 
harmonizing this verse with ver. 7; such as that in ver. 1 the 
Apostle speaks ironically (Theod., Theod. Mops., Hrasm., 
Muscul., Evans, and Bp. Lightfoot on Phil. iii. 15). 

ἡ γνῶσις φυσιοῖ κιτίλ.. A maxim; hence the asyndeton. 
Its meaning is that love is both the complement and pre- 
servative of knowledge: the complement, for there is in the 
spiritual man a moral no less than an intellectual element, love 
of man as well as apprehension of Diviue truth, and he seeks 
the well-being of others no less than his own growth; its pre- 
servative, for knowledge without love, far from raising a solid 
superstructure, puffeth up and renders men—to borrow Plato’s 
words—pevpatwv τε Kal πνευμάτων ὥσπερ λίμνας ἐμπιπλα- 
μένους. Of. xiv. 8,4, 17; 1 Thess. v. 11. 

ἀγάπη. Ayardw and ἀγαπητός occur in class. Greek, but 
ἀγάπη first in LXX. It is “a word born within the bosom 
of revealed religion.”” (Abp. Trench, Syn. § XII.) Probably 
akin to ἄγαμαι, it denotes the love that springs from admira- 
tion for excellence. Though ἀγαπῶ and φιλῶ are both used 
to express love to Christ, ἀγάπη, not φιλία, became the 
‘designation of the Christian grace of love to God and our 
neighbour, partly because the associations of φιλέα, not to say 
ἔρως, had become too corrupt to admit of its consecration to 
the service of Christianity, partly because Christian love is not 
the affection that springs from desire, however pure, but the 
willing devotion of veneration for goodness. The rest of the 
chapter is an expansion of the statement that love buildeth up. 

V. 2. The δέ after εὐ is omitted in δὲ AB. Its omission 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—VvillI. 1-3. 911 


makes the clause more sententious. For εἰδέναι δ ABC 
read ἐγνωκέναι. So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Weste. and Hort. 
For οὐδέπω οὐδὲν ἔγνωκε NAB read οὔπω ἔγνω. This pre- 
serves the usual distinction between οἶδα, “I know a fact,” 
and ἔγνωκα, “I know the nature of a thing.” Cf. Evans’s 
good note. What the Apostle expressed in general terms in 
ver. 1 he now puts in a concrete form, first in reference to 
knowledge without love (ver 2), then in reference to love as 
the complement and preservative of knowledge (ver. 3). 

First, ver. 2 sets forth the conceit and the emptiness of 
knowledge without love. Its conceit is implied in δοκεῖ, its 
emptiness in οὔπω ἔγνω, and the former is said to be the 
evidence of the latter. Cf. Plat., Apol. p. 23: “he is the 
wisest who knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing.” 
For δοκεῖ in the sense of “ pretending,” “conceitedly profess- 
ing,” cf. xi. 16; Matt. 11. 9; Mark x. 42. Ἔγνω. is “ came to 
know ”; ἐγνωκέναι is ““ possesses knowledge.” Cf. 1 John iii. 2. 
The man imagines himself in the abiding possession of spi- 
ritual knowledge; really he never once attained to it. Some 
render τὸ by “‘ something great.” But it has this meaning only 
with verbs of saying, and here τὸ must express the knowing 
man’s assumed modesty: “if any one pretends to have some 
knowledge.” Οὔπω, that is, not until he adds to his know- 
ledge love. 

V. 3. Second, love is the complement and preservative of 
knowledge. The profounder thought of this verse differs 
from that of ver. 1 in three things: (1) The maxim is put in 
a concrete form, in order to introduce the great conception, 
“is known of God,’ which cannot be stated in the abstract. 
(2) For “love of men” we have now “love of God,” the latter 
being the source also of spiritual knowledge. For knowledge 
of Divine truth and Divine morality is founded on knowledge 
of God’s moral nature, and true knowledge of God, who is 
love, is attainable only by love (cf. 1 John iv. 7, 8). (3) For 
“love buildeth up” we have now “this man is known of God.” 


_ What this means has been variously explained :— 


(i.) Beza, Rosenmiiller, Heydenreich think it is an instance 
of the hophal construction. Cf. Aug., Tract. XCVIII. in 
Johan.: “ipse dicitur cognosci a Deo, quia Deus illum cog- 
noscentem facit.” But such a construction is foreign to the 


212 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


genius of the language, and no other instance of it is adduced 
in Hellenistic Greek, unless 10 be in xii. 12. 

(ii.) Aquinas, Herveeus, Estius, Grotius, Wolf render “he 
is approved of God,” as in Ps. i. 6. But it is fatal to this 
otherwise natural rendering that it changes the meaning of 
γινώσκειν from the signification of the word in ver. 2. Any 
intentional antanaclasis must not be thought of; it would 
destroy the connection. The same objection is. good against 
the slightly different rendering of Theod., Severian, Theophyl., 
Usteri (Entw. p. 288) : “ he is cared for by God;” and against 
Calvin’s paraphrase: “ he is reckoned among sons.” 

(ii.) Augustine is much better in De Trin. IX. 1.1: “Nee 
sic quidem dixit, Cognovit illum, que periculosa presumptio 
est, sed, Cognitus est ab illo. Sic et alibi cum dixisset, Nune 
autem cognoscentes Deum; statim corrigens, Imo cogniti, 
inquit, a Deo.’ Cf. Philo, De Cherub. p. 160, Vol. I., Mang. 
γνωριζόμεθα μᾶλλον ἢ γνωρίζομεν. But even this is not al- 
together satisfactory. For the Apostle John does not hesitate 
to use the expression γινώσκει τὸν Θεόν (1 John iv. 7; cf. 
John xvii. 8), and St. Paul (ii. 10) infers from the fact that the 
Spirit of God searches the depths of God, that the spiritual 
man also, in whom the Spirit dwells, can know them (cf. xii. 
12). Τὸ 15 not, therefore, ‘a dangerous presumption” to say 
that the spiritual man knows God, whom the only begotten 
Son hath declared. . 

(iv.) Canon Evans makes οὗτος refer to God: ‘This one 
(God) is known by him.” The meaning so obtained is most 
suitable. But I cannot persuade myself that the Apostle 
would not, if this had been his meaning, have written Θεός. 
Cf. John xi. 22. 

(v.) The point of the verses is spiritual discernment of the 
true nature and content of moral, as distinguished from cere- 
monial, obligation. The healthy action of this faculty depends 
on love of the brethren. But love of the brethren springs 
from love to God, which is, therefore, the necessary condition 
of enlightenment of conscience. The reason is that without 
loving God we cannot know God, and without knowing God 
we cannot know the nature of the good. Seraphic love 
accompanies “ the cherub contemplation.” But what is meant 


by knowledge of God? Not a comprehension of His being or 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—VIl. 3, 4. 213 


attributes in themselves. The creature can know God only in 
so far as the mind of God is directed towards him. Know- 
ledge of moral truths differs from other knowledge in being 
accompanied by a consciousness of being in the sight of God ; 
that is, of being ourselves in a certain moral condition. We 
cannot discern the nature of goodness without judging our- 
selves as being or as not being good; and this act of self- 
judgment involves a sense of God’s judgment. Hence know- 
ledge of God gives us knowledge of moral truths only when 
knowledge of God means that we are conscious of being 
known of Him. 

According to St. Paul, therefore, two distinct elements com- 
bine to form an enlightened conscience—knowledge and love. 
Conscience is impossible without reason and emotion. This 
would have been his answer, we may conjecture, if he had 
consciously put to himself the modern question, What is 
conscience? His words may. be compared with Aristotle’s 
definition of προαίρεσις as βουλευτική ὄρεξις. (Hth. Nic. III. 
111. 19), or what is the same thing, dpextixds νοῦς (ib. VI. ii. 
6); and with Bp. Butler’s account of conscience, “ whether 
considered as a sentiment of the understanding or as a per- 
ception of the heart, or, which seems the truth, as including 
both.” (Dissert. IL.) 

Vv. 4-18. Having stated these two principles of action, 
knowledge and love, in an abstract and in a concrete form, 
the Apostle resumes consideration of the question respecting 
sacrificial meats. To mark resumption οὖν is used more 
frequently than any other particle. Cf. Hartung, Partikell. II. 
p. 22. Soin Mark ii.31. From ver. 4 to ver. 8 the content 
of Christian knowledge, considered apart from love, is set 
forth; from ver. 9 to ver. 13 the effect of Christian love is 
explained. 

V. 4. Knowledge, even without love, can attain to an ap- 
prehension of the spirituality and oneness of God. First, God 
is a Spirit, and there is no image of Him in the world. Itisa 
question whether οὐδέν is predicate (“an idol is nothing in the 
world”) or an attributive (“there is no idol in the world”). 
The former is the view of Tert. (Contra Mare. V. 7), Chrys., 
Theod., Theophyl., Herveeus, Calvin, Estius, Cor. a Lap., 
Stanley, ete. It has in its favour that the appellation given 


914 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


in the Old Testament to the heathen gods is Elihm (“no- 
things ”), which are mockingly contrasted with Elohim. Cf. 
Lev. xix. 4; 1 Chron. xvi. 26; Jer. viii. 19; Acts xiv. 15; 
1 Cor. x. 19; xii. 2. Against it are the following consider- 
ations: (1) the position of οὐδέν, (2) the parallelism between 
οὐδὲν εἴδωλον and οὐδεὶς Θεός, (3) the redundancy, according 
to this view, of the words “in the world.” It is, therefore, 
much more probable that the Apostle intended to say “ that 
there is no idol in the world.” So Meyer, De Wette, Maier, 
Osiander, Hofmann, etc.. But the words are still obscure. 
For what is meant by “idol?” ‘The usual explanation is that 
it means, not the image, but the deity represented: The 
objects of heathen worship have no real existence; they are 
merely the creatures of the worshipper’s imagination and, 
consequently, cannot either sanctify or pollute the meats 
offered to them. But this is in direct contradiction of the 
Apostle’s statement that the objects of heathen worship are 
the demons (cf. x. 20). Meyer, De Wette, Kling think the 
meaning is that the heathen gods do not exist in the form in 
which they are conceived to exist by the heathen, as Zeus or 
Apollo ; they exist as demons, but not as gods. This makes the 
next clause tautological. Chrys., on the other hand, under- 
stands by εἴδωλον, not the deity represented, but the image of 
wood or stone. Similarly Augustine (αν. in Ps. exxxv. § 9) 
says the reference is “‘ad materiam terrenam sensu carentem.” 
It is very doubtful that εἴδωλον ever means a false god, apart 
from the image. The examples cited by expositors do not 
prove it. If, therefore, εἴδωλον denotes the visible image, the 
words will mean that there is no such thing as an image of 
Deity in all creation. In the supramundane sphere there is an 
εἰκών of the Divine μορφή. Cf. 2 Cor.iv.4; Col.i.15, But as 
there is no Divine σχῆμα, there is no εἴδωλον of God. Second, 
God is one, and there is no God except that One. (Ἕτερος 
is omitted in N ABD. So Lachm., Treg., Westc. and Hort; 
but Tisch. now retains it.) The heathen deities are not gods, 
From these two fundamental contrasts between Christianity 
and heathenism it follows that no meats offered to an idol are 
holy either because they are sanctified to the service of the 
true God, who is a Spirit, or because they are offered to 
heathen deities, which are non-existent. 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—VIII. 4, 5. 215 


Vv. 5,6. The two statements, that God is a Spirit and that 
God is one, are proved by an appeal to the Christian conscious- 
ness. ‘Thus the words “we know” are justified, and that 
knowledge is declared to be something deeper than an intel- 
lectual conviction, God is now designated Father, and the 
Lord of all is said to be Jesus Christ, and we, Christians, are 
shown to be in intimate relation to Christ and to the Father. 
The argument is to this effect: The heathen gods are not 
gods, and we know it; but even if they have some sort of 
existence—as indeed they have—yet to us, Christians, they 
are as if they were not; for our conception of Divinity includes 
the two notions of fatherhood and lordship, and these we find 
only in our Father and our Lord. 

V.5. This protasis and the appended parenthesis are ex- 
plained by most expositors to be a virtual denial of the exist- 
ence of the heathen gods in any form, as if the Apostle were 
assuming the point of view of their worshippers. But the fol- 
lowing considerations seem to me te tell against this view: (1) 
It makes cai useless; καὶ yap εἴπερ must mean “for even if,” 
not “although.” Cf. note on vii. 21. (2) The position of εἰσεὲ 
makes the word emphatic; for of course it cannot be joined 
to λεγόμενοι, as if the two words were synonymous with 
εἶναι λέγονται. (3) This view makes the parenthetical clause 
ὥσπερ. . . πολλοί a mere repetition in an expanded form of 
the conditional clause εἴπερ... γῆς. If the parenthetical 
clause be regarded as proof of the statement that the heathen 
believed in many gods, it may be replied that to prove this 
was unnecessary. For these reasons I understand the protasis 
in ver. 5 to be an admission that the gods of the heathen do 
exist in some form. In what form, the Apostle does not say in 
this place. He says it in x. 20. There is only one God; and 
even if we admit, as admit we must, that there are real beings 
to whom the sacrifices of the heathen are offered, still the 
Christian spitit refuses to acknowledge that these beings can 
pollute the good creatures of God or touch God’s children. 
The Apostle’s denial that these beings are gods is contained 
in the word λεγόμενοι, “ called ” what they are not. 

εἴτε ἐν οὐρανῷ εἴτε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Heathen mythology con- 
tains two conceptions. On the one hand, it is the expression 
of men’s natural theology or universal belief in the existence 


216 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


of one unseen Being, who made all things. The primitive 
worship was monotheistic, and “every new name threatened 
to obscure more and more the primitive intuition of God.” 
(Max Miiller, Chips, Vol. II. p. 358.1) The Apostle’s state- 
ment that heathenism filled heaven with gods many implies 
that it not only contradicted the Christian revelation, but 
that it is also false to its own original monotheism. Again, 
on the other hand, the heathen mytho ogy, especially in its 
Greek development, may be regarded as the religious expres- 
sion of national ideas and civilization. The Greek conception 
of the independence of every unit in nature and society was 
embodied in the mythology. Every city had its tutelary deity ; 
every spring of water was haunted; every crop of corn was 
under the protection of a goddess; every movement of the 
elements and every human action might assume a sacred 
character and become, the one a prayer, the other its an- 
swer, There were gods on the earth, The Greeks themselves 
recognised the distinction between ἐπουρανίοι θεοί and θεοὶ 
ἐπυχθονίοι. ‘Thus heathen religion denied or ignored the 
oneness and the spirituality of God,—in its departure, that 
is, from primitive: monotheism and its deification of the forces 
of nature. 

Chrys. and most expositors think the sun, moon and stars 
are meant by the gods in heaven, and deified herves and kings 
by gods on earth, But this limits the deification of nature to 
the heavenly bodies. 

ὥσπερ εἰσὶν θεοὶ πολλοὶ καὶ κύριοι πολλοί. A parenthetical 
clause, intended to justify the supposition now made. Its 
force consists in its being an expression of the Apostle’s own 
belief in the objective existence, in some form or other here 
not stated, of the beings whom the heathens worshipped. The 
emphasis, therefore, is, first of all, on εἰσίν. But πολλοί also 
is emphatic; the multeity of heathen gods standing iu con- 
trast to the One God of Christians. Κύριοι is added to θεοί 
for the sake of the distinction between εἷς Κύριος and εἷς Θεός 
in ver. 6. But for that reason the distinction between θεοί and 
κύριοι must be more than verbal. Κύριος is, as Stanley observes, 

1 Prof. Max Miiller, I am bound to acknowledge, more recently explained 


that his words must not be understood as a declaration of belief in the priority 
of monotheism. 


net 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.-—VIII. 5, 6. 217 


‘the correlative of the Syrian Baal.”” But, as θεοί implies that 
there is a true God, so κύριοι implies the existence of the true 
Lord, that is, Jehovah, who is contrasted with Baalim and de- 
notes the God that revealed Himself to Moses and the prophets, 
the moral Governor, who is “longsuffering, abundant in good- 
ness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, but not always 
pardoning the guilty.” The Apostle contrasts the polytheism 
of degenerate heathenism with the true monotheism, and the 
Baalim of other Semitic nations with Jehovah. He speaks of 
heathenism as it is both the corruption of natural and the 
antagonist of revealed theology. 

V.6. To us, Christians, there is but one God and one 
Lord. The inference—which the Apostle leaves to his readers 
to draw—is that we, Christians, at least, should not regard 
meat offered to an idol as either sanctified or polluted. He 
proves that to us there is but one God and one Lord by 
declaring who and what the one God and the one Lord are :— 


I. One God ; II. One Lord ; 
who is, (1) Father ; who is, (1) Jesus Christ ; 

(2) He from (2) He through 
whom are whom are 
all things ; all things ; 

(3) He to (3) He through 
whom are we whom are we 
Christians. Christians, 


ἡμῖν, “for us,” as in ix. 2. Cf. note oni. 18. 

ὁ πατήρ, not to be joined with Θεός, “God the Father ” ; 
but in apposition to it, ‘‘God, who is the Father’; as, in 
_the corresponding clause, ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός is in apposition 
to Κύριος, “ one Lord, who is Jesus Christ.’’? Again, πατήρ 
must not be restricted to God’s being the Father of Jesus 
Christ (Cajet., Alford). For, (1) this would require the cor- 
responding words to be, “one Lord, even the Son;” (2) the 
sul)ject of the whole passage is, not what God is to Christ, but. 
what He is to us, and the truth of God’s fatherhood as He is 
related to men is a notion in advance of that of the spirituality 
and oneness of the Divine nature (ver. 4), or rather, it is that 
conception of God in which the spirituality and oneness of His 
nature is revealed to us and accepted by us in its practical 


218 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


influence. On the other hand, God’s fatherhood must not in 
this passage be restricted to the correlative of Christian adop- 
tion (Meyer). The words “from Him are all things” express 
the entire content of the fatherhood of God. The idea is 
partially realized in creation, but fully in Christian sonship. 
Believers are from and unto God. In the series from God 
man is the τέλος, the last and highest term; in the series unto 
God the believer is the ἀρχή, the first term. In Rom. xi. 36 
the three expressions “from Him,” “through Him,” “unto 
Him,” are used in reference to God. But in both passages the 
prepositions do not express Trinitarianism, inasmuch as, not 
eis, but ἐν, would be used in speaking of the Holy Spirit. At 
the same time, the use of “through Him are all things,” in 
Rom. xi. 36 of God and in this passage of Christ, is some 
evidence that St. Paul understood the words in the Johannine 
meaning (John 1. 3) and ascribed to the Lord Jesus the at- 
tributes which St. John ascribes to the Logos. Pfleiderer 
(Paulin. p. 146) infers from Col. i. 16 that the Christology of 
the Epistle to the Colossians is inconsistent with that of the 
present chapter. The inference is not warranted. On similar 
grounds it might be argued that the doctrine of the Epistle 
to the Romans, in which “through ” is said of God, is in- 
consistent with our Epistle, in which all things are said to 
be “‘through ” Christ. Baur (Die Lehre von der Dreieinigkeit, 
I. p. 85; Neutest. Theol. p. 193) objects that Κύριος in St. 
Paul’s Epistles always means the Lord of the Church, through 
whom everything is done that has for its object man’s 
salvation through God’s grace. He infers that the words 
“through Him are all things” must refer to the moral cre- 
ation; adding that St. Paul nowhere ascribes the creation 
of the world to Christ. But against his interpretation are, 
(1) the resemblance between: this ver. and Rom. xi. 36; 
Col. i. 15-19; (2) the manifest parallelism between “through 
Him are all things” and “from Him are all things”; (8) 
the antithesis between “all things” and “ we,” Christians ; 
(4) the purpose of the passage, which is to prove that eat- 
ing meat offered to an idol is not sinful, inasmuch as all 
things were made through Christ. It is true that Κύριος 
means the Lord of the Church. But this only adds to 
the significance of the statement. All things were made 


— =~ 
πον Ξ 

7 

Βα) 


MEAT OFFERED ΤῸ IDOLS.—VIII. 6, 7. 219 


through Him who is Lord of the Church. Consequently every- 
thing created is consecrated to His service and the service 
of His Church, Even Zeller rejects Baur’s view (cf. Theol. 
Jahrb., 1842, p. 74). The words “through Him” imply, 
moreover, not an ideal, but a personal pre-existence of the 
One Lord Jesus Christ. That this was St. Paul’s doctrine is 
certain from the word “ sent”? in Rom. viii. 8; Gal. iv. 4, and 
the words “ became poor” in 2 Cor. viii. 9, to cite only from 
Epistles on all sides acknowledged to be genuine. On the 
other hand, the use here of the name “Jesus” does not justify 
Pfleiderer’s assertion (Paulin. p. 142) that the Apostle  re- 
garded Christ as being man in his pre-existing state.’ On 
the theology of the ver. cf. Chrys., De Incompr. Dei Nat., 
Hom. 5. That writers coming so soon after the Apostle as 
Clement of Rome and Barnabas, whose teaching is most pro- 
bably formed on the type of St. Paul’s, believe in the pre- 
existence of our Lord is in itself almost enough to prove that 
the Apostle taught the same doctrine. Cf. Barn., Hp. V. 5 sq. 

εἰς αὐτόν, for εἰς ὅν. Cf. vii. 13. 

V. ἡ. But this knowledge is not in all. Some brethren 
are weak. He distinguishes between having knowledge (ver. 
1) and its being within; between the merely intellectual 
belief and the inward illumination of moral strength. In this 
connection γνῶσις is equivalent to σοφία. It is the prero- 
gative of the spiritual man, who knows the mind of Christ. 
Every Christian, it is true, has the indwelling Spirit, and, 
covsequently, knowledge in germ. But in the spiritual man 
only, that is the mature Christian, is it fully developed. Ct, 
1 Tim. iv. 8, τοῖς πιστοῖς καὶ ἐπεγνωκόσιν, that is, knowledge 
15 developed faith. It is at this point that Clement of 
Alexandria and Origen sometimes deviate from the Apostle’s 
teaching, by representing faith as blind acceptance and kuow- 
ledge as superadded insight (θεωρία) into the original reason 
or Logos; whereas in St. Paul’s Hpistles they differ only as 
the babe in Christ differs from the more developed believer, 
as the bud differs from the ripe fruit. Cf. Clem. Al., Strom. 
VI. pp. 817 sqq. Potter. ; 

For συνειδήσει (Ν᾽ D, Vulg.) 8' A B read συνηθείᾳ, which is 


1 No Jew could have conceived of a man being a medium of the creation of 
all things. 


220 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


adopted by Bengel, lachm., Treg., Tisch., Westc. aud Hort. 
But Reiche, Osiander, De Wette, Meyer retain συνειδήσει. 
The difference of meaning is not great. Συνείδησις expresses 
the result, συνήθεια the process that leads up to it. But the 
weight of evidence is in favour of συνηθείᾳ, which is also 
apparently, though not really, the more difficult reading. For 
it seems at first strange that the Apostle should speak of 
Christians associating with an idol. The fact is that he intro- 
duces it as an instance of the formation of a moral conviction 
by habituation, Ἐθισμῷ ai ἀρχαὶ τοῦ ἠθικοῦ γινώσκον- 
ται. (Andron. Rhod. Paraphr. Arist. Eth. Nic. I. 7). Con- 
sequently the opposite conviction can be formed only by 
habituation; that is to say, it is not every Christian that can 
entirely free his conscience from the vague dread that behind 
the idol there lurks a divine power. From a similar source 
comes the belief in witchcraft among Christians. Missionaries 
bear witness to the same fact among their converts to this day. 
Hence the words “ until now.” It is not mere faith, but faith 
developed into knowledge that liberates conscience ; and that 
knowledge must be, not a merely intellectual belief in a 
doctrine, but the inmost conviction that grows through habi- 
tuation with the truth of God’s spirituality and oneness. ‘This 
is the force of ἐν in the previous clause. If συνειδήσει is read, 
then τοῦ εἰδώλου will be objective gen.: “ conscious convictions 
in respect of the idol.”’ So συνείδησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ in 1 Pet. ii. 19. 

ἕως ἄρτι must follow συνηθείᾳ (or συνειδήσει) as in δὲ Β Ὁ 
Vulg. Hence it is not to be connected with “eat” (Theophyl., 
(cum., Calvin), but closely with “habituation,” which has not 
yet ceased. The words imply that some at least of the weak 
brethren belonged to the Gentile portion of the Church. In 
Rom. xiv. they are Jews. The moral influence of Mosaism 
was in this matter similar to that of pagan religions. Both 
enfeebled the conscience. On adverbial phrases attached to 
substantives in the place of adjectives and the omission of tlic 
article cf. Winer, Gr. ὃ LIV. 6; Buttmann, N.S. p. 83. Soin 
xii. 81, καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν ὁδόν. Examples occur in the classics. 
Cf. Bernhardy, W.S. p. 338. 

ὡς εἰδωλόθυτον ἐσθίουσι, “ meat offered to an idol they eat as 
such,” not as ordinary meat. Hence the supposed defilement. 

συνείδησις. The word first occurs in a passage of Chrysip- 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—VIII. 7. 221 


pus cited by Diog. Laert. VII. 85, πρῶτον yap οἰκεῖον πάντι 
ζώῳ ἡ σύστασις καὶ ἡ ταύτης συνείδησις, where it means 
“consciousness.” But the passage proves that when the word 
came to mean “ conscience,’ the ovy- expressed, not “ knowing 
together with God,” as Bp. Sanderson held after the School- 
men, but “ knowing together with oneself”; thatis, it signifies 
that man cannot be conscious of himself without knowing him- 
self as a moral creature. In the language of Stoicism it con- 
veys also the ethical notion of an internal judge. Cf. Hpictet., 
Fragm. 27, ἄνδρας δὲ γενομένους ὁ Θεὸς παραδίδωσι τῇ 
ἐμφύτῳ συνειδήσει φυλάττειν, and frequently in Seneca. So 
in LXX., Eccles. x. 20, but not inthe Old Test. In our 
passage it means the sense of guilt which a Christian has 
when he thinks he has contracted moral defilement by con- 
tact with an idol. 

ἀσθενής, “a weak” or, as we might say, “ diseased ” con- 
science, incapable of forming a sound, healthy judgment. As 
we speak of weak nerves, the Apostle speaks of a weak 
conscience. A person who has been taught when a child to 
believe in ghosts will sometimes be seized with dread if he 
is alone at night, though his reason has long since convinced 
him that spectres do not appear. Similarly, though the moral 
reason of a Christian tells him that the heathen deities which 
he formerly worshipped do not exist, yet it requires spiritual 
knowledge of the true God to allay his dread. Cf. 1 Tim. i. 
5, where the Apostle joins ‘‘a good conscience” with “ faith 
unfeigned.” ‘I'he metaphor is more apparent in ἀσθενής than 
it would be in ἀσθενοῦσα (ver. 12). 

μολύνεται, “is continually defiled”; that is, the weak Christ- 
ian contracts moral defilement in his own eyes, and that more 
and more. The New Test. speaks of the conscience itself 
being defiled or pure (1 Tim. ii. 9), evil (Heb. x. 22) or good 
(1 Tim. i. 19), because the word still carried with it the idea 
_of self-consciousness. A pure or defiled conscience is a con- 
sciousness of being pure or defiled. But if, in the language 
of Butler, we assert the sovereign authority of conscience as 
judge, then we cannot ascribe to conscience either moral good- 
ness or moral depravity. Hven “an erring conscience”? is a 
_ phrase without meaning. Conscience is the judge that pro- 
nounces sentence. But the correctness of the verdict depends 


223, THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


on the evidence submitted to the reason and the capacity of 
the intellect to form a judgment upon it; and the moral value 
of that judgment arises from considerations extraneous to the 
conscience. Further, this consciousness of defilement from 
contact with an idol is produced only in the weak Christian. 
A heathen does not consider it to be a defilement; for the 
idol is to him the manifestation of God. A strong Christian 
will not think it a defilement; for he has no dread of the 
demons and does not believe they can defile him apart from 
his own will. Curtius (Grundz. p. 372) connects μολύνω with 
μέλας and Lat. malus. 

V. 8. παραστήσει. So 8! A B, adopted by Lachm., Tisch., 
Treg., Westc. and Hort. D has παρίστησι, which De Wette 
and Hofmann prefer, because the first may have crept in from 
Rom. xiv. 10; 2 Cor. iv. 14. The meaning is given in Rom. 


xiv. 10, παραστησόμεθα τῷ βήματι τοῦ Θεοῦ, which again is | 


expounded by κάμψει πᾶν γόνυ. Food will not present us 
before God as our judge. It is true that conscience is essen- 
tially the power which sets a man in God’s presence. Βα 
eating and abstaining from eating are things indifferent. God 
condemns neither the one nor the other. If conscience con- 
demns either, it places the man before a phantom tribunal, not 
before the living God. The Auth. and Rev. Versions render 
the word by ‘‘ commend,” as if it were synon. with συνίστημι. 
But this would be applicable only to one limb of the antithesis 
that follows, περισσεύομεν. The words ὑστερούμεθα and περισ- 
cevouev must, therefore, have a comparative force, and be 
connected, the former with ἐὰν μὴ φάγωμεν, the latter with 
ἐὰν φάγωμεν : “For neither, if we abstain, are we inferior on 
that account to him that eats; nor, if we eat, are we on that 
account superior to him that abstains.” The man of over- 
scrupulous conscience often admires the superior knowledge 
of the strong Christian and, at the same time, condemns the 
liberty of action which is the direct result of largeness of 
view ; while the strong Christian is conscious of a superiority 
that often degenerates into pride and contempt of the breth- 
ren, Hence it is that the term “ weak” is applied to him 
who abstains, the term “‘ strong ” to him who eats. 

_V, 9. Having stated the principle that eating and absten- 
tion are in themselves indifferent, he proceeds to state the 


- 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—vu1.. 7-11. 293 


opposite principle, that the strong Christian ought to abstain, 
if by eating he tempts the weak brother to do what his con- 
science condemns as a sin. 

δέ, adversative. ‘Though food does not affect our relation 
to God, it may affect our relation to our brethren and so bring 
us indirectly under the condemnation of God. 

ἐξουσία, “authority.” Chrys. observes that a rebuke lies 
hid in the word. 

πρόσκομμα, that at which one strikes one’s foot. Cf. note 
oni. 23; Rom xiy. 13. 

τοῖς ἀσθενέσιν. So NA BD, which is decisive against ἀσθε- 
vovow. The weakness precedes and occasions the stumbling. 
Cf. Rom. xiv. 21, where a climax is observable, προσκόπτει 
—oKavoanriletar—ac bevel. 

V. 10. That the example of a strong brother may lead a 
weak brother astray is proved by supposing a case, an extreme 
one, it is true, but likely to have occurred in Corinth. He 
supposes a Christian taking part with heathen friends at a 
sacrificial banquet, and that before the shrine of an idol. In 
x. 14 he condemns the practice on other grounds. 

yap, introducing an instance. 

εἰδωλείῳ, “the place of an 1840]. Cf. Macc. i. 47. So 
Actapteiov, 1 Sam. xxxi. 10. The Apostle shuns the use of 
the word “temple” or “house” in speaking of dead gods, 
in the same way as θυσιαστήριον is used of the altar of the 
true God, to distinguish it from the heathen βωμός. 

κατακείμενον, “reclining at table.” So also ἀνακεῖσθαι in 
late Greek, as John xii. 2. A banquet in a public place, but 
not worthy to be designated a sacrifice in a temple. 

οἰκοδομηθήσεται, ironical: ‘ built up.” The irony is lost 
if we render it ‘‘emboldened” (Tyndale, Auth, and Rev. Ver- 
sions). The word implies a consciousness of superiority in 
being permitted by one’s conscience to sit at a banquet in 
the place of an idol. Cf. Tert., De Preescript. 3: “ eedificari in 
ruinam.” 

V. 11, The best attested reading is ἀπόλλυται yap 6 
ἀσθενῶν ἐν τῇ σῇ γνώσει, 6 ἀδελφὸς bv bv Χριστὸς ἀπέθανεν. 
So δὲ ABD, except that A has οὖν, ποῦ γάρ, D an asyndeton, 
and that B omits of. The ver. is, therefore, not part of the 
question of ver. 10, but the answer to it: “ Builded up, did I 


294 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


say ? Nay, he is perishing!’? Hence the pres. ἀπόλλυται is 
not intended to express the certainty of a future occurrence, 
but implies that the weak brother is now, by reason of his 
guilt, in the act of perishing. 

ἐν τῇ σῇ γνώσει, not merely ‘ by reason of thy knowledge,” 
but “by attempting to share in thy knowledge,” without 
waking it really his own. An antithesis is implied between 
ἐν and of. Ἐπί would express only the external occasion 
of his perishing; ἐν means “in the midst of, surrounded 
by, thy knowledge.” The knowledge increases the sinfulness 
of ensnaring the weak. He uses the largeness of his own 
Christianity to destroy a brother Christian, whereas that large- 
ness of view ought to have enabled him to understand his 
brother’s position and taught him how to save his brother. 
The words “a brother, for whom Christ died,” are a most 
effective close to the Apostle’s remonstrance. They express 
the idea of love in two of its aspects; first, as it is based on 
Christian brotherhood, and second, as it is the manifestation of 
Christ’s death in the Christian’s life. The Apostle contrasts 
the reckless indifference of a brother to a brother and the 
generous self-sacrifice of Christ for an enemy. Cf. Rom. xv. 3. 
Another thought, that the strong Christian was undoing the 
work of Christ, is included, but is not the most prominent idea 
of the words. 

V. 12. δέ, “yea moreover.” Of. Heb. ii. 6; iv. 18; xii. 6; 
Ast, Lex. Plat. p. 421. 

καί, not exactly explicative of. ἁμαρτάνοντες (De Wette), 
but adding to the notion of sin that of injury. 

i ede Elsewhere in the New Test. τύπτω is not used 
metaphorically, as it is occasionally in class. Greek and LXX., 
as Prov. xxvi. 22, The metaphor of \ smiting ” conscience is 
suggested by the word “ weak.” 5 

τὴν συνείδησιν ἀσθενοῦσαν, “their conscience, and that 
when it is growing weaker.” 

εἰς Χριστόν. Not only their conduct is in direct contrast 
to that of Christ, but also they sin against Him. How itis a 
sin against Christ is told us in the word οὕτω, which should be 
closely connected with ἁμαρτάνοντες, “thus sinning.” For, 
first, they sin against a brother, who is eqnally loved by 
Christ ; second, they sin against conscience, emancipated and 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—villI. 11-13. 225 


endowed with sovereign authority by Christ; third, they 
destroy him for whom Christ died. 

V.18. διόπερ, “just for this reason.” The wep adds 
vividness and force to the δι᾿ 6. Cf. Hartung, Purtikell. I. pp. 
327-344. The meaning here is that the Apostle is resolved 
not to offend a brother because he would be sinning against 
Christ by so doing. On περ cf. ἐάνπερ (“if as a matter of 
fact ’’), Heb. in. 14. 

βρῶμα, generally: “if such a thing as food.” There are 
things which the Apostle will not sacrifice; and some of them 
are in themselves indifferent, provided his action does not 
wound the conscience of a weak brother but condemns the 
insidious doctrines of false brethren, He would not, for this 
reason, consent to circumcise Titus (cf. Gal. 11. 5). 

ov μή. Understand some such word as φόβος, as in Xen., 
Mem. 11. i. 25, οὐ φόβος μή σε ἀγάγω. The fut. indic. is 
accounted for by supposing that the origin of the phrase was 
forgotten and it came to be regarded as a mere strong nega- 
tive. Elmsley (on Eur., Med. 1151) explains it as a question ; 
ov μὴ μενεῖς ; “ will you not not-remain?”’? But this does not 
account for the use of οὐ μή with the subjunctive, and the 
second negative cannot be μή. Goodwin (Greek Moods, δὲ 87 
and 89, Note 2, Rem. 1) considers this subjunctive to be a relic 
of the Homeric use of that mood with the force of a weak 
fut. indic. But, in that case, we should expect ov, without μή, 
to take the subjunctive sometimes; and, as οὐ μή is an 
emphatic negative, we should expect it to be followed by a 
strong, not a weak, future. 

κρέα, ““ flesh-meat,” that food which, as a matter of fact, 
caused the weak brother to stumble. The Apostle’s sudden 
vehemence arises from his mention of Christ; and the declara- 
tion of his resolve prepares the way for the mention of his 
own example in the next chapter. 


Β. -The Reconciliation of the opposite Christian Conceptions of 
Liberty and Love. 
(ix. 1-27). 

This chapter stands in close connection with the preceding 
discussion of the law of love as it regulates the action of 
Christian liberty. The Apostle’s conduct is an instance of 

8 


226 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


self-denying abstinence from lawful things for the sake of 
others. The main thought of the chapter is stated in ver. 19, 
the rest being either an expansion or a proof of this thought 
in its two opposite aspects. First, he proves from the fact of 
his apostleship that he is free. As instances of the application 
of the Christian conception of liberty, he specifies freedom from 
restrictions as to food, freedom from obligation to abstain from 
marriage, and freedom to claim maintenance at the hands of 
the Churches. Second, he is resolved, notwithstanding this, to 
forego the exercise of his rights in these things, that he may 
have more power to gain men through the Gospel, as a runner 
or a boxer undergoes har dship when he is in training for the 
race or the ring. 

V. 1. The impassioned language of vii. 19 continues, This 
justifies the asyndeton. NAB Vulg. read οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐλεύθερος ; 
οὐκ εἰμὶ ἀπόστολος; So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and 
Hort. Reiche defends the tex. rec. on the ground that the 
mention of liberty ought to follow the mention of the apostolic 
office from which it springs. But the liberty here spoken of 
is the Christian liberty; only its application is different in the 
case of an Apostle. Meanwhile he takes advantage of the refer- 
ence to his apostleship to prove by the way that he is an apostle. 
For a similar short digression cf. xv. 9, 10. The two essential 
‘constituents of apostleship were, first, that the Apostle should 
‘bear witness to the world of the central fact of Christianity, the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ, and, second, that he should preach 
the risen Saviour in the demonstration of Spirit and of power. 
Paul has seen Jesus after His resurrection and is, conse- 
‘quently, a witness of the Lord’s heavenly life. His ministry also 
hhas been effectual in making the Corinthians themselves Christ- 
jans, so that they at least must acknowledge his apostleship. 

Χριστόν should be omitted, asin NAB. He means that he 
has seen the historical Jesus of Nazareth. The reference must 
be to the appearance of Jesus to Saul on the way to Damascus. 
Riickert objects that no mention is made of his having seen 
Jesus. But ef. Acts ix. 17,27. Tohave seen Him in the days 
of His flesh or in a vision would not have made St. Paul a 
witness for the resurrection. 

ἑώρακα. The perf. expresses the abiding result of having — 
seen Jesus in the power of his apostleship. 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—Ix. 1-4. 297 


ἔργον. Of. Seneca, Hp. 34, “meum opus es.” 

V. 2. ἄλλοις. They cannot be identified with any degree 
of certainty with any party in the Church, such as the Petrine 
party (Rabiger). The word implies that St. Paul’s apostleship 
was denied in many Churches. His vindicating his apostleship 
in writing to the Corinthians proves that it was questioned in 
Corinth also. Almost all his epistles lead to the same conclu- 
sion, and show the widespread influence of his antagonists. 

ἀλλά ye, only here and Luke xxiv. 21 in the New Test. 
In both places it seems to mean “yet at all events.” In 
class. Greek some word comes in between. 

σφραγίς, not only a σημεῖον. What they were was a Divine 
attestation to his apostleship. Cf. Rom.iv. 11. “In the Lord,” 
belongs, not to “apostleship,” but to ὑμεῖς : ‘You, as being 
in the Lord.”’ 

V.3. αὕτη is referred by Chrys. to what follows, as if the 
Apostle were justifying his practice of not depending on the 
Churches for his maintenance. But no one questioned his 
right to do so, whereas many denied his apostleship. The 
word must, therefore, refer to what precedes: “That I have 
seen Jesus, and that you are my work in the Lord—these are 
the proof of my apostleship.” Adrn is not subject (De Wette), 
but predicate, in gender of subject. For the clause answers 
the question, “what is the seal of my apostleship?” Cf. 
John i. 19; xvii. 3. 

ἀνακρίνουσιν, a legal term. Cf. Luke xxiii. 14. It means, 
not merely “ questioning it,” but “examining into it.” 

V. 4. Christian liberty is not in all cases identical in its 
manifestations. To an Apostle it means authority to expect 
maintenance from the Churches for himself and his family. 

μὴ ov, NUM non, gives an ironical turn to the question. It 
expresses surprise. Cf. Xen., Mem. IV. ii. 12, μὴ οὐ δύκαμαι, 
“Ts it, then, come to this, that I cannot,” ete. ! 

φαγεῖν καὶ πιεῖν, that is, to be maintained at the expense of 
the Churches: Cf. Luke x. 7. Here is no allusion to eating 
things offered to idols (Olshaus.), or to asceticism (Hofm.), as in 
Matt. xi. 18. Cf. vv. 7,9, 11,14. It was necessary for the 
Apostle to discuss the question of his claim to receive main- 
tenance from the Churches, partly in consequence of the doubts 
cast upon his apostleship, partly perhaps because a reaction 


228 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


was setting in against the enthusiasm of the earliest Christians 
of Jerusalem, who considered nothing their own, and of such 
men as Barnabas, who sold his land and laid the money at the 
Apostles’ feet, partly on account of the “peculiar difficulties,” as 
Wordsworth observes, “ the two Apostles of the Gentiles had 
to contend with arising from the absence of any regular code 
of ministerial maintenance for the priests of heathen nations.” 

V.5. Another form of Christian liberty is the right to 
enter the married state. 

ἀδελφὴν γυναῖκα, “a sister as wife,” that 15, ἃ wife who is a 
Christian. So Tert., Hvhort. ad Cast. 8. But in De Monog.8 
he offers the explanation afterwards mentioned by Theod. and 
accepted by Jerome (Contra Jovin. I. 26), Augustine (De Op. 
Monach. 4), Gicum., Theophyl., Cor. a Lap., Est., that the 
Apostle is speaking, not of a wife, but of a female attendant 
who ministered of her substance to the Apostles as rich women 
had ministered to Christ. Helena, the companion of Simon 
Magus, was an instance of the abuse of this very thing. The 
only argument favourable to this view is the general tradition 
of the early Church that few of the Apostles were married. 
Peter only, says Tertullian (wt swp.). Clement of Alexandria 
(Strom. III. p. 535, Potter) adds Philip and Paul, from having 
misunderstood Acts xxi.9; Phil. iv. 3.1 But γυναῖκα would 
surely be redundant, if it did not mean “ wife.” The practice 
among the clergy of having γυναῖκας συνγεισάκτους, which 
prevailed widely in the time of Chrysostom, was forbidden by 
several Councils. We may infer that the Apostle speaks here 
of marriage as a thing indifferent no less than as an example of 
the application of the principle that an Apostle, who journeys 
from place to place to found Churches, has a right to expect 
the Churches to maintain him and his family. 

os... Κηφᾶς, “as the rest of the Apostles and, to par- 
ticularize, the brothers of the Lord and Cephas.” If Cephas 
is here included among the Apostles, so also are the brothers 
of the Lord. In Gal. 1. 19 James is almost certainly styled an 
Apostle as well as brother of the Lord, and apparently so, but 


1 T cannot account for the statement in the interpolated Ignatian Epistle 
to the Philadelphians, ch. 4, that all the Apostles, including Paul, were mar- 
ried. It is an interpolation not in the interest of asceticism. Ambrosiaster 
also (on 2 Coy. xi. 2) speaks to the same effect, but excepts Paul and John. 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—Ix. 4-10. 929 


not so certainly, in 1 Cor. xv. 7. On καί in the sense of “ to 
particularize”’ cf. note on ver. 5. All the Apostles had con- 
fessedly the right; the Lord’s brothers and Cephas exercised 
it. On the difficult question whether the Lord’s brothers were 
sons of Joseph and Mary or sons of Joseph by a former wife 
or sons of another Mary, sister to the Lord’s mother, cf. Bp. 
Lightfoot’s exhaustive note, “ Galatians,” pp. 246 sqq. 

V. 6. 7 throws some degree of emotion into the question. 

ἐργάζεσθαι, the usual word for manual labour. Cf. Acts 
xviii. 3; 2 Thess. ui. 8. 

V. 7. Passing from his claim to maintenance as the equal 
of the other Apostles, he argues the question on its own merits. 
He mentions, as every-day illustrations of the principle that 
the labourer is worthy of his meat, the soldier, the vine- 
dresser, and the shepherd. Such secular vocations are men- 
tioned as are themselves types of the Christian ministry. The 
first represents the Apostles going forth to wage war with the 
world; the second represents them, after conquest, planting 
Churches ; the third represents their pastoral care of the 
Churches which they have founded. Again, the soldier is a 
mercenary ; the vine-dresser an owner ; the shepherd a slave. 
Yet in all alike labour implies reward. 

tov καρπόν. So ABCD. The accus. would scarcely be 
used if the reference were not to the owner of the vineyard. 

Vv. 8,9. He will not rest content with illustrations taken 
κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, from human affairs. Cf. Gal. iti. 15; note on 
ii. 1. He will appeal to the Divine law given through Moses. 
‘Cf. Deut. xxv. 4. The correct reading is ἢ καὶ ὁ νόμος ταῦτα οὐ 
λέγε; So ABCD. The form of expression intimates that 
some one has objected that, whatever may be the practice of 
men, God does not enjoin upon the Churches the duty of 
maintaining the Apostles: ‘Or is it indeed true that the law 
says nothing about these things ? ” 

φιμώσεις.. BD read κημώσεις. So Tisch. It is a various 
reading in 1 Tim. v. 18 also. Φέμος is for σφιγμός, the root 
being dvy, as in Lat. figo. 

ἀλοάω is akin to εἰλύω and Lat. volvo. In the East to this 
day oxen tread out the corn, andthe Arabs do not muzzle them. 

V.10. μὴ... Θεῷ; “Is it for the oxen that God 
cares,” that is, when He enjoins the Israelites not to muzzle 


230 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


them? “Or does not’? God in the law “ generally,” as also 
in every particular command, “ speak on our account?” The 
command not to muzzle the ox that treads the corn is given 
with an ulterior reference to ministers of the Gospel. The 
proof of this is that the Mosaic Law, as a whole, has a spiritual, 
Christian meaning underlying the more immediate application 
of its provisions. The meaning is not that every law has for 
an ulterior purpose the care and government of rational crea- 
tures, as the words are understood by Cajetan, Wolf, Neander, 
Alford, and De Wette, who cites an apposite parallel from 
Philo, De Sacrif. p. 848, οὐ yap ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀλόγων ὁ νόμος, 
ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῶν vody καὶ λόγον ἐχόντων. Cf. De Somniis 1. 
Ῥ. 579, where Philo declares it would be unworthy of God to 
take thought of a garment; quite in the spirit of Heraclitus’ 
words, πάντη yap ἠσέβησεν Ὅμηρος εἰ μὴ ἠλληγόρησεν. But 
this would not prove the right of Apostles to maintenance. 
Besides, we cannot imagine St. Paul departing so far from the 
spirit of Christ’s teaching, that God cares for the raven and 
sparrow because they are His creatures, not merely for the 
sake of man. ‘The Apostle here applies the doctrine of the 
typical nature of the Mosaic dispensation. Cf. Tert., Contra 
Mare. V. 7, “et legem allegoricam secundum nos probavit.” 
The allegory of Sarah and Hagar in Gal. iv. is another instance 
in which the Apostle ascribes to the Law a spiritual meaning. 
This interpretation explains πάντως, which in a question must 
mean “as a whole,” “generally,’? and cannot be rendered 
“certainly.” Cf. Pfleiderer, Paulin. p. 72. The Epistle of 
Barnabas differs from our passage only in the foreed character 
of the allegories. The general theory of both writers is one 
and the same, and the more extreme form which it assumes in 
that Epistle gives a clue to the true purport of the doctrine in 
the hands of St. Paul. Cf. Barn., Ep. X. 2, dpa οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν 
ἐντολὴ Θεοῦ τὸ μὴ τρώγειν, Mawions δὲ ἐν πνεύματι ἐλάλησεν. 
What this sentence affirms is in accordance with the present 
passage; what it denies is anti- Pauline. 

μέλει. Cf. Barn., Ep. ΧΙ. 1, ξητήσωμεν δὲ εἰ ἐμέλησεν τῷ 
Κυρίῳ προφανερῶσαι κ.τ.λ., that is, in the Law. 

γάρ «.T.r., sc. ὁ νόμος, “ Yes, it was written because of 
us.” dp is used when the answer is a repetition of a ques- 
tion in the form of an assertion. Cf. 1 Thess. ii, 20. 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—Ix. 10, 11. 231 


ὅτι, demonstrative, “to show that” (Evans). If it is causal 
(“ because,” Revised Version), then the argument is that the 
Mosaic injunction is proved to have a typical meaning because 
it is in accordance with natural equity. But, if this were the 
Apostle’s purpose, an appeal to the general principle would be 
sufficient and render an allegorical use of the law of Moses 
needless. Again, the ὅτι clause is not the subject of ἐγράφη 
(Authorized Version); for then we should expect γέγραπται 
and also be compelled to suppose, with Riickert, that the 
subsequent words were taken from a lost apocryphal book. 
Meyer, De Wette, Alford, Evans rightly understand the words 
in a spiritual, not in a literal, sense. ‘‘ Ploughing”’ denotes 
the work done by him who breaks the fallow ground to form 
a Christian community ; and “threshing”’ refers to the work 
of subsequent teachers. The reading of ABC, adopted by 
Lachm., ‘isch., Westc. and Hort, is ὀφείλει ἐπ’ ἐλπίδι ὁ 
ἀροτριῶν ἀροτριᾶν καὶ 6 ἀλοῶν ἐπ᾽ ἐλπίδι τοῦ μετέχειν. 
Paraphrase: “Surely it is because of us Apostles that this 
particular injunction was put in writing, to show that it is 
right for him who ploughs, that is, first preaches the Gospel 
in any place, to do so with the prospect of reaping, that is, of 
receiving maintenance from the Church he has formed, and for 
him that threshes, that is, teaches and administers, to do so 
with the-prospect of sharing in that maintenance.” 

V. 11. A sudden, we may almost add humorous, descent 
from allegory to practical common sense. The irony of the 
transition is slightly marked by the antithetical balance of the 
two clauses and the use of μέγα. “Is it a great matter? Is 
there a principle at stake, which renders it incumbent upon 
us to thrust aside as unworthy of notice the injunction of so 
great a man as Moses?” Hence perhaps it is that the name 
of Moses is introduced in ver. 9. 

τὰ πνευματικά, that is, the things of God. Cf. ii. 14; xii. 
1-3; xiv. 1; Rom. xv. 27. 

ἐσπείραμεν. Cf. Luke viii. 11; Gal. v. 22. The Apostles 
sowed the word; believers reaped the graces of the Spirit. 
Τὰ σαρκικά (in accordance with the synecdochical use of cap& 
for “body ”) is synon. with τὰ βιωτικά (vi. 3), oppos. to 
δυνατὰ TO Θεῷ (2 Cor. x. 4). Cf. Col. ii. 22. 

θερίσομεν. So NAB, adopted by Lachm., Treg., Westc. 


932 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


and Hort. So Tisch. in 8th edition. Hermann (De Part. 
av, II. 7) vindicated the use of εἰ with the subjunctive in the 
classics, though in prose its occurrence is extremely rare. Cf. 
Thue. VI. 21, εἰ ξυστῶσιν, Luke ix. 13. But the fut. indic. 
is preferable here. It expresses the certain connection be- 
tween the sowing and the claim to reap. 

V.12. The usual explanation is that of Chrys.: “If false 
teachers are permitted to make slaves of you, we have a 
greater right to do it than they; yet we have not used that 
right.” The gen. ὑμῶν will then be objective: “power over 
you.” Cf. Matt. x. 1. But (1) “authority over you” is not 
a natural expression for maintenance; (2) this interpretation 
assigns no meaning to μετέχουσιν, “partake of.” Canon 
Evans’ suggestion that ὑμῶν is subjective gen. appears to me 
to be excellent. But I cannot think that ἐξουσία means no- 
thing more than “ license to expect maintenance.” “ All things 
are yours,” says the Apostle elsewhere. Whatever rights and 
prerogatives a teacher has, they are simply an embodiment of 
the rights that belong to the Church. Here, therefore, the 
Apostle speaks of the claim to maintenance as being one phase 
of the Church’s possession of all things. Community of pro- 
perty had been tried and abandoned. But the principle on 
which that experiment was based was a truth intact. “ Omnia 
indiscreta sunt apud nos.” In an ideal Church that applica- 
tion of the principle may be resuscitated in its integrity. The 
maintenance of Christian ministers is only a partial application 
of it in one direction. In ver. 11 the Apostle asks if there 
is any great principle that forbids his receiving maintenance 
at the hands of the Church; inthis verse he reminds them 
of the principle, already stated in ii. 22, which sustains the 
claim. 

ἐγκοπήν. Ἐϊγκόπτειν is properly “to cut up a road to 
check the advance of an enemy or runner.” ‘The oppos. is 
ὁδοποιεῖν and προκόπτειν. Cf. Chrys., ἀναβολὴν τῷ δρόμῳ 
τοῦ λόγου. Cf. 2 Thess, iii. 1. 

V.13. Another argument, which differs from the previous 
ones in two things: (1) it is not an argument from analogy, 
but represents the maintenance of the ministers at the hands 
of the Churches as being truly an application of a principle 
acted upou under the Old Test. ; (2) that principle is that their 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—Ix. 11-15. 933 


maintenance is, not an earthly and secular matter (σαρκικόν, 
ver. 11), but a spiritual offering to God. 

The Apostle mentions those who performed sacred rites and 
those who gave attendance at the altar. Ambrosiaster thinks 
the former are Gentiles, the latter Jews. It is not likely the 
Apostle would have based an argument on heathen customs. 
Theophy]., Gicum., Vitringa (Synag. Vet. p. 74), etc., consider 
the former to be Levites, the latter the priests. Certainly 
ἐργάζεσθαι includes more than the act of oblation, and in 
Num. viii. 12 sqq. it describes the peculiar duties of the 
Levites. At any rate it comprehends in its range of meaning 
the preparation of the sacrifices, while παρεδρεύοντες refers 
specially to the subsequent act of offering them to God; that 
is to say, the former clause is another allusion to founders 
of Churches, the latter to the men that carried on the work 
locally. 

ἐργάζεσθαι is Hellenistic in the sense of offering worship 
and performing sacred rites. This usage is a survival of the 
ordinary meaning of the Ionic ῥέζειν. For προσεδρεύοντες 
ABCD read wapedpevovtes. The meaning is the same. Cf. 
Heb. vii. 13. 

θυσιαστηρίῳ, “ with the altar.” A portion is consumed by 
the fire on the altar, a portion by the priest, who shares it 
with the altar. Θυσιαστήριον, the altar of Jehovah ; βωμός, a 
heathen altar. Philo uses βωμός of the altar of the Lord. So 
also Barn., Hp. I. 7. 

V.14. As God enjoined under the Law, so also Christ 
ordained in His Church (cf. Matt. x. 10; Luke x. 7). On ἐκ 
cf. Rom. 1. 17. So ἀποζῆν, Thue. I. 2. 

V. 15. κέχρημαι. So NABCD. Copyists are me to 
change a perf. into an aor. 

οὐδέν᾽ τούτων, not “none of these arguments ” (Heinrici), 
but “none of these prerogatives,” such as, freedom from re- 
strictions as to food, freedom to marry, and authority to claim 
‘Maintenance from the Churches. Cf. Phil. iv. 10 sqq. 

éypawa, epistolary aor. He avows his intention to abide by 
his resolution henceforth. 

ἐν ἐμοί, “in my case” (cf. Matt. xvii. 12). In xiv. 11 it 
means “in my judyment.” Sometimes it means “in my 
power.” 


234 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


καλόν, “a noble thing.” Cf. Soph., Ant. 72, καλόν μοι τοῦτο 
ποιούσῃ θανεῖν. Theophyl. and Cicum. wrongly understand 
λιμῷ. ἰ 

ἢ τὸ καύχημά μον οὐδεὶς κενώσει. A reads οὐθεὶς μὴ 
κενώσει, 8 BD read οὐδεὶς κενώσει, C reads ἵνα tis κενώσει, 
which appears in Chrys., Theod., etc., in the subjunctive 
κενώσῃ. Reiche adopts the reading of C. This would make 
the construction easy. Cf. Buttmann, N.S. p. 202. The use 
of iva with the fut. indic. in the New Test. is unquestionable. 
Cf. Gal. ii. 4, καταδουλώσουσιν (δ A BC D), Phil. ii. 11, ἐξο- 
μολογήσεται (ACD), 1 Pet. iii. 1, κερδηθήσονται (δὲ A B C), ete. 
But the better attested reading is οὐδεὶς κενώσει, a more 
difficult and, on that ground, preferable reading. So Lachm., 
Tisch. (8th ed.), Treg., Westc. and Hort. What then is the 
explanation? Meyer renders ἤ by “or”: “it is better for 
me to die than use my authority in this matter; or at least, 
if death will not be the consequence, still nobody shall make 
void my boast.” But the warrgqov before the 7 and the 
unnatural weakening of the Apostle’s asseveration by the 
introduction of another asseveration intended to modify it are 
fatal to this forced interpretation. Canon Evans supplies ἵνα 
in thought after 7. But this compels him to understand οὐδείς 
as if it were equivalent to rvs, and introduce into Hellenistic 
Greek the class. idiom μᾶλλον ἢ ov in the sense of “ rather 
than.” We are driven to the supposition of an aposiopesis, 
though we need not suppose an anacoluthon and place a colon 
after μου. The Apostle started with the intention of saying 
“than that any one should,” etc. But he turns the sentence 
into a direct denial: ‘ than that—no one shall make void my 
boast.” The boast is that he preaches the gospel without 
accepting maintenance from the Churches. This he regards 
as representative ot all the other instances of his self-denial. 

V.16. This matter of boasting, the loss of which is worse 
than death, does not consist merely in preaching the gospel. 
That is a charge laid upon him, and woe to him if he neglects 
it. The “necessity ”’ laid upon him is certainly not the need 
of maintenance (Aug., Serm. in Monte, 11. 18; Jonathan 
Edwards, Notes on the Bible), but the command of Christ and 
the consequent urgency of obedience. 

V.17. Of the various interpretations offered of this diffi- 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—1Ix. 15-17. 235 


cult ver. two only need be here considered. Calvin, Estius, 
Neander, Wordsworth, Stanley, etc., thus: To prove that woe 
is to him if he preaches not the gospel, the Apostle makes 
two suppositions. The one is that he preaches the gospel 
with readiness of mind, in which case he may expect a reward ; 
the other is that he preaches the gospel against his will, in 
which case he would only be a slave in charge,—but this he 
is not. But in either case, therefore, woe is to him if he 
neglects to preach the gospel. For if he neglects to do it 
with readiness of mind, he forfeits the reward promised to the 
earnest worker; if he neglects to do it as a duty, then he, as 
being a slave, is liable to punishment. This interpretation is 
beset with difficulties. (1) Why, if this view is correct, does 
the Apostle make these two suppositions? Was he doubtful 
whether he preached with a willing or an unwilling mind? 
(2) This interpretation implies that Christ rewards only zeal, 
whereas faithfulness in discharging a duty will secure a 
reward (cf. iv. 5). (3) The turn sometimes given to this 
interpretation implies that οἰκονομία conveys the notion of 
degradation. The steward was often a slave (cf. Luke xii. 42, 
43). But iniv.1; Eph. ii. 2; Col. 1.25; Tit. i. 7, οἰκονομία, 
far from being less honourable than μίέσθος, is as much more 
honourable as trust is superior to mercenary service. 

Meyer, De Wette, Hofmann, Alford, Hodge, etc., thus: To 
prove that woe is to him, if he preaches not the gospel, or, 
better still, that preaching the gospel is no matter of boasting, 
the Apostle makes two suppositions. The one is that he takes 
this honour unto himself (Heb. v. 4), without being called of 
God. The other is that he preaches, not for the gratification 
of his own ambition, but in strict obedience to the constrain- 
ing command of Christ (cf. 2 Cor. x. 5). In the former case 
he will, it is true, expect a reward. But this is not his case. 
He is but a steward, who can demand no payment, not a 
mercenary, who claims his wage. To this interpretation the 
objection at once suggests itself that it seems to assign to 
ἑκών and ἀκών meanings which they do not easily bear. But 
cf. Rom. viii. 20, ody ἑκοῦσα, “ not of its own accord”; Hom., 
Il. 111. 66, ἑκὼν δ᾽ οὐκ ἄν τις ἕλοιτο, “which a man by his 
own efforts is not likely to obtain”; Adschyl., Ayam. 38, ἑκὼν 
λήθομαι, “of set purpose I forget;” and espec. ib. 1613, 


236 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


where ἑκὼν κατακτανεῖν explains τοῦδε τοῦ φόνου ῥαφεύς 
This view of the passage is the only one that assigns to 
πράσσω a distinct meaning, that of “engaging in a transac- 
tion,’ the opposite of which is “being entrusted with a 
stewardship.” If his preaching is a business transaction, he 
expects to make a profit of some kind or other; if it is not, 
then the only explanation that can be offered of his having 
undertaken such a work is that he is a steward carrying out 
the injunctions of his Lord. As a preacher of the gospel, 
therefore, he has no occasion of boasting. His glorying and 
his reward must be sought in his preaching the gospel without 
charge. 

V.18. tis. . .6 μισθός ; “ which reward, then, is the reward 
that is reserved for me?” The art. is intended to intimate 
that he considers lis reward to be assured. But the boasting 
and the reward are not the same thing. The former is the 
Apostle’s own act, the latter a future good to be bestowed 
upon him. Meyer is surely wrong in supposing the answer to 
be, “I have no reward.” But other expositors are no less in 
error in supposing the reward to consist in the praise awarded 
by Christ in the day of judgment to all his faithful servants. 
This reward he will receive for preaching the gospel. Here 
he speaks of a peculiar reward which would be bestowed upon 
him for preaching the gospel without charge. Alford and 
Evans continue the question to the end of the verse. But 
the emphasis on εὐαγγελιζόμενος and its close proximity to 
ἀδάπανον suggest that this clause is really the answer. 
“ Proclaiming the gospel, the free, glad tidings of God, I 
am resolved that my preaching shall be like the gospel, free.” 
The felicitous and characteristic paradox should be noted. 
The consciousness of preaching freely a free gospel was the 
Apostle’s pay for declining to be paid. Ε ᾿ 

ἵνα, in the sense of a substantival infin. Cf. John viii. 56, 
ἠγαλλιάσατο iva ἴδῇ, which in class. Greek would have been 
τῷ ἰδεῖν. Cf. Winer, Gr. ὃ XLIX. 8. 

ἀδάπανον, here only in the New Test. The root daz, a 
lengthened form of δα, to give, occurs in δάπτω, δεῖπνον, 
δέπας. 

θήσω, “ make the gospel to be without charge.” This use 
of τίθημι with a secondary predicate occurs in class. Greek, 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—Ix. 17-19. PAS 


though seldom in prose (cf. Ast, Lea. Plat. III. p. 385). The 
usual word is ποιῶ (cf. note on xii. 18). On the fut. θήσω 
cf. notes on ver. 15 and iv. 6. 

καταχρήσασθαι, “ make full use.” Cf. note on vii. 31. 

εἰς. Meyer (on Rom. i. 20) insists that εἰς with the sub- 
stantival infin. always expresses purpose. It expresses result 
in Heb. xi. 3, perhaps in 2 Cor. vii. 6. Yet, in our passage, 
that the Apostle refrained from asserting his rights in the 
sphere of the gospel is probably represented as the motive 
that prompted him to preach gratuitously. 

ἐν TO εὐαγγελίῳ may be joined with ἐξουσίᾳ, without repe- 
tition of τῇ. Repetition of the article is dispensed with, (1) 
before oft recurring phrases, such as ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ, κατὰ 
σάρκα, and, no doubt, ἐν τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ, (2) after substan- 
tives derived from verbs that are construed with the prepo- 
sition used in the phrase, as τὴν συνεσιν μου ἐν TO μυστηρίῳ. 
But here it is better to join the words with καταχρήσασθαι. 
For he could not be thought to refer to any other than his 
apostolical authority. Joined with the verb the words are 
another statement of the contrast between the free gospel 
preached and the exacting spirit of the preacher who demands 
pay, when it is not voluntarily offered. 

Vy. 19-22. A detailed enumeration of instances in which 
he found his reward for preaching the gospel gratuitously in 
assimilating his ministry to the free character of the gospel. 

V.19. ἐκ only here with ἐλεύθερος, for ἀπό (Rom. vii. 8) 
or ethical dat. (Rom. vi. 20). It expresses, not exemption 
from, but deliverance out of, bondage. But πάντων is masc., 
like τοὺς πλείονας. Origen (Cut.) limits it unduly to freedom 
from sin. It means the liberty with which Christ hath made 
us free from bondage to men. But, in the spirit of Christ 
and the gospel, he used his Christian freedom to make himself, 
by a voluntary act, every man’s slave. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 7; Mark 
x. 44; Rom. xv. 1. 

τοὺς πλείονας, “the more”; not “the majority”? (Meyer, 
De Wette) ; not “more than the other Apostles”? (Alford) ; 
but “ more than would otherwise be gained.” It is virtually _ 
equivalent to the Hug. phrase, “ the more,” where “the” is a 
comparative ablative. Of. 2 Cor. iv. 15. ; 

κερδήσω. The word both explains μισθός and carries on 


238 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the metaphor of the steward. He refuses payment in money 
that he may make the greater gain in souls. But the gain is 
that which a faithful steward makes, not for himself, but for 
his master. 

Vv. 20-22. In his voluntary subjection to others he re- 
gards them from three distinct points of view—race, religion, 
conscience. 

V. 20, Race. To Jews he became a Jew. He does not 
in this instance add that to the Greeks he became a Greek. 
This was unnecessary, partly because the old Hellenic pride 
and exclusiveness had in great measure ceased at this time, 
partly because the Apostle himself was practically a Greek in 
sentiment and language. Great as is the moral altitude and 
equilibrium of St. Paul, it falls short of the perfect, universal 

character of Jesus Christ, in which we can perceive no effort to 
’ be a Jew to the Jews or a Greek to the Greeks, but an entire 
oneness with both. 

Religion. The Apostle circumcised Timothy at Lystra, and 
on that very journey he was carrying to the Churches of Asia 
the decree of the Council of Jerusalem, which released Gentile 
Christians from the yoke of circumcision (cf. Acts xvi. 4). 
Contrast the Apostle’s address in the synagogue of Antioch 
in Pisidia (Acts xiii. 14-41) and his address to the Athenians 
(Acts xvii. 22-31). 

The clause μὴ ὧν αὐτὸς ὑπὸ νόμον must be inserted from 
NR ABCD. So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. The 
clause proves that the words ‘‘ under the law” are not pre- 
cisely synonymous with “Jew.” The Apostle was a Jew, but 
he was not “ under the law.” It proves also that by “law” 
the Apostle means the complex of the Mosaic institutions ; not 
the moral law alone, nor the ceremonial law alone, but both re- 
garded as one. He does not distinguish them as if they were 
two laws. But his conversion had produced so mighty a revo- 
lution in Paul that he who was previously a Hebrew of the 
Hebrews and a Pharisee had to assume deliberately a new 
mode of religious thought and feeling in order to put himself 
in sympathy with the Judaists in the Church. 

VY. 21 ἄνομος, not merely “one not under the law,” but 
“an outlaw.’ The word describes the Gentiles from a Jewish 
point of view. As ἄνομος is more than μὴ νόμον ἔχων (Rom. 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—Ix. 19-22. 239 


ii. 14), so also ἔννομος is more than ὑπὸ νόμον. Not that the 
Apostle uses the word in the ethical meaning which it has in 
the classics, “ just” (cf. Plat., Rep. p. 302), but that the differ- 
ence between Jew and Christian is that the former lives wnder 
the law, which speaks from without and from above, the latter 
in the law, because that law is itself love. 

μὴ ὦν, “not regarding myself as being,” etc. These 
clauses contain the reason why he made himself all things to 
all men. He is without law to those who are without law, 
because he is in the law of Christ and, therefore, not without 
law in respect to God, the ultimate lawgiver and judge. 

For Θεῴ and Χριστῷ we must read Θεοῦ and Χριστοῦ, as 
in ABCD. They are gen. of possession, as in κλητοὶ 'Incov 
Χριστοῦ. 

xepdav®. So ABC, adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., 
Westc. and Hort. . 

V. 22. Conscience. The Apostle reverts to the special point 
in which he made himself an example to the Corinthians (cf. 
viii. 10). This, together with the fact that ἀσθενής elsewhere, 
always means weak Christians, is decisive against Alford’s 
view that the Apostle here speaks of unbelievers. Cf. x. 32, 
where he mentions Jews, Greeks, and the Church of God. 

γέγονα, “1 became and have ever since continued to be- 
come” all things to all men. This is what the Fathers meant 
by οἰκονομία and συγκατάβασις. An interesting corre- 
spondence passed between Jerome and Augustine as to the 
import of the Apostle’s words. The former held that they 
justify dispensatory dissimulation. The latter maintained that 
the Apostle’s observing Jewish ceremonies was quite con- 
sistent with the doctrine that these ceremonies have no saving 
power. They had been instituted by God, whereas the re- 
ligious rites of the Gentiles owed their origin to the instiga- 
tion of demons. As the Apostle did not conceal his belief 
that men’s salvation is through Christ alone, his occasionally 
observing ceremonies which he confessed to be to him un- 
meaning, in order to avoid giving offence, was not an act 
of dissimulation. Jerome was convinced by his friend’s 
arguments. 

iva σώσω. Peter did it from moral weakness. Cf. Gal. 
i. 42. 


240 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


πάντως τινας, “in every way some”; that is, one man in 
one way, another in another. His desire was to save all in 
some way or other, and if he failed of this, yet in all these 
ways some at least. 

V. 238. πάντα. SoNABCD. 

διὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, not “for the sake of,” but “because of 
the gospel ;”’ that is, because the nature of the gospel is such 
that self-denial in its ministers is the only spirit worthy of it. 
Hence συγκοιν. means more than “ partaker of salvation.” 
The word sums up the detailed statement of the previous 
verses that he assimilated his ministry to the character of his 
message. He wished to be a sharer with others in the spirit 
of the gospel. 

Vv. 24-27. By the two illustrations of runners in a race 
and boxers, he shows the necessity for special exertion and 
unusual self-denial in order to win the reward. That reward 
is not eternal life (which is not a μισθός), but assimilation to 
the spirit of the gospel. To gain the prize has not been given 
to all Christians. 

V. 24. βραβεῖον (derivation conjectural).1 Vulg. has bra- 
vium. The Latin Fathers liked to use the Apostle’s word for 
the Christian prize, in preference to ἄθλον or premium. The 
allusion is probably to the Isthmian games, though there is 
nothing in the passage to exclude allusion to the Olympic. 

οὕτω, that is, as athletes do, with full resolve to win, 
remembering that all do not win. 

τρέχετε, imperat. The indic. we have already in πάντες 
τρέχουσιν. 

καταλάβητε, “that ye may (=so as to) lay hold of,” etc.; 
synon. with ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι of 1 Tim. vi. 12. Cf. Phil. ii, 12, 
This is better than “ to overtake the other runners”’ (Evans). 
The word means “ to catch at,”’ not “to out-strip.” 

V. 25. The two lessons the Apostle wishes to teach are 
the difficulty of winning and the unspeakable worth of the 
prize. Both illustrations of the runner and the boxer would 
equally well serve to teach both lessons. As simply matter οὗ 
style, the Apostle attaches the one lesson to the latter com- 
parison, the other to the former, 


1 Ig it akin to the Eng. brave, which formerly meant ‘‘ handsome,” like the 
Welsh word braf ? 


stot il 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—Ix. 22-27. 241 


mas, “ every athlete, whether runner or boxer”; thus pre- 
paring the way for πυκτεύω. 

éyxpatevetat. The hardship is not confined to the actual 
race, but includes the severe training that prepares for it. 

μὲν οὖν. The οὖν calls attention to a special point, the μέν 
is correlative of δέ, It is not the μὲν οὖν of argument, as in 
vi. 4, 7. Cf. Winer, Gr. § 1.111. 8. a, Moulton’s note. 

φθαρτόν, at the Isthmian games a wreath of pine leaves. 
The victor won, it is true, a crown of giory. But the wither- 
ing of the leaves was no less symbolical than their greenness. 
In every ἀγώνισμα és TO παραχρῆμα the glory fades almost as 
fast as the wreath. The memorable men of Greece are not the 
Olympic victors. Cf. 1 Pet. v. 4. 

V. 26. ἐγὼ τοίνυν, “I therefore,” that is, because I am 
ravning in a race for a special prize ; because a long course 
of training is needed; and because an imperishable wreath is 
held before me. Whatever you may do, this I will do, being 
ἀθλητὴς ἄθλου τοῦ μεγίστου (M. Anton. III. 4). 

ἀδήλως, ‘ without steady aim.” Cf. 2 Mace. vii. 34. It is, 
I think, late Greek in this sense. Uncertainty of purpose 
aud vagueness in realizing the nature of the Christian aim is 
one of the most wide-spread and enervating dangers of the 
spiritual life. 

τρέχω. Cf. Acts xx. 24, 

οὐκ ἀέρα δέρων, that is, “as hitting, not the air, but my 
antagonist.” A lively description of a σκιαμαχία, a mere 
fencing. So Chrys. Cf. Vergil’s “ictibus auras verbero.” 
This is more to the purpose than the usual explanation that 
*‘ hitting the air” means ‘ missing one’s man,” “hitting wide 
of the mark.” The οὐκ negatives ἀέρα, μή would have nega-— 
tived the dépwv. Cf. Xen., Mem. III. ix. 4, wapodcav... 
ov τῇ τυχούσῃ. The words ἀλλά pov τὸ σῶμα were in the 
Apostle’s mind. But, instead of connecting them with δέρων, 
he uses a stronger expression, ὑπωπιάζω, thus adding to the 
meaning. Ζέρω, etymologically the same word as “ to tear.” 

V. 27. What he has said negatively he now states affirma- 
tively with greater emphasis and detail. He not only hits, 
but he bruises, and his antagonist is his own body. Even 
this is not enough. To the metaphor of boxing is added that 
of capturing in war and enslaving, to show the abiding effect 

B. 


249 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


of the combat. And all this, lest the umpire, Christ, after 
investigation made into the victor’s strict adherence to the 
conditions of the contest, should in the end refuse to acknow- 
ledge his victory or to bestow on him the crown. This would 
be the more galling to him, because his work as an Apostle 
consisted in heralding the contest and summoning others into 
the lists. 

ὑπωπιάξω (from ὑπώπιον, hence “to hit under the eye”’), 
“to bruise.” The reading ὑποπιέζω, though adopted by 
Reiche and Hofmann from Clem. Al., Strom. III. p. 558 
Potter (cf. his note), is not the reading of NA BC. 

τὸ σῶμα, not because the body is necessarily evil, but 
because it is the weapon with which the law of sin and death 
fights us and, at the same time, the sphere within which the 
spiritual powers of evil come within our reach to be bruised 
and destroyed. 

δουλαγωγῶ. He again changes the metaphor to that of a 
battle, in order to express the permanence of the result. The 
‘Christian victor does not destroy the body, but makes it his 
‘slave ; so that it now serves the soul which it sought to slay. 

κηρύξας. It is difficult to reject the allusion, admitted by 
Wolf, Osiander, Maier, Meyer, etc., to the heralds whose duty 
it was not only to proclaim the victor (Aidlian, Var. Hist. II. 
23), but also to summon the runners (Plat., Leg. VIII. p. 
833). Yet in Clem. Rom., Ad Oor. 5, βραβεῖον . . . 
“κήρυξ γενόμενος, the word does not seem to mean more than 
“preacher of the gospel,” notwithstanding the proximity of 
the metaphor in βραβεῖον. 

ἀδόκιμος, “rejected by the umpire;” in allusion to the 
exumination of the combatants at the close of the contest, 
‘when, if the victor was proved not to have contended in strict 
accordance with the conditions, he forfeited the crown. The 
word is derived, not from Soxipafew, but from δέχομαι, and 
‘always has the passive meaning “rejected.” There is no 
allusion to “assaying in fire” (Hvans). ‘ Castaway,” “re- 
jected,” are better renderings than “unapproved.” The 
Genevan version has “reproved,”’ that is, of men; and it 
has been said that the rendering was adopted for doctrinal 
weasons. 


2 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—Ix. 27-x. 1. 943 


C. The Temptations to Sin to which the Corinthian Christ- 
tans would eapose themselves, as the Israelites had done, by 
taking part im Idol-feasts. 


(x. 1-14). 


This chapter is to be closely connected with ix. 27. In the 
history of the chosen race we see men becoming ἀδόκιμοι and 
falling short of the promised inheritance. But the warning is 
the more pointed inasmuch as the danger of the Corinthians 
and of the Israelites alike lay in contact with idolatry. The 
chapter, therefore, is also closely connected with the subject 
of this division of the Epistle. 

V.1. yap. SoN ABCD, Vulg. It introduces an instance 
of rejection by God. 

ov θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν. Cf. xii. 1; Rom.i. 18; xi. 25; 2 
Cor. i.8; 1 Thess. iv. 13. The words are always used, not 
by way of rhetorical impressiveness, but to introduce what 
could not otherwise be known to the reader; such as the 
Apostle’s intention to visit Rome, his afflictions, revelations 
vouchsafed him concerning the spiritual blessings to be 
bestowed on Israel, spiritual gifts in the Church, the hope of 
the resurrection, or, as here, the sacramental character of the 
cloud and of the passage through the Red Sea. 

πατέρες. Hstius, Meyer, etc., explain it of the national 
ancestors of the Apostle and other Jews in the Church. The 
name was so used by the Jews themselves. But Christ gave 
it an ethical meaning, and significantly added the word 
“your,” implying that the unbelief of that generation was the 
same as the unbelief of their forefathers. The Apostle also 
uses the word ethically, but says “our,” to intimate that the 
Church under the Old Testament was the spiritual ancestry of 
the Church under the New. But he speaks of the Church 
as a whole, not as in Rom. iv. 16; Gal. iii. 29, of individual 
Christians. Cf.Gal. vi. 16; Clem. Rom., Ad Cor. 4, ὁ πατὴρ 
ἡμῶν Ἰακώβ. 

ὑπό. Cf. Exod. xiii. 21; Wisd. xix. 7, σκιάζουσα νεφέλη, 
and Ps. civ. (cv.) 39, διεπέτασε νεφέλην. Though ὑπό is 
sometimes used with the accus. to denote extension under, 
without the idea of motion (as in Acts ii. 5; cf. Thue. 11. 99, 


“ὑπὸ τὸ Πάγγαιον . . . ὑπὸ τῷ Παγγαίῳ, without differ- 


214 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ence of meaning), the act of going under the cloud was pro- 
bably in the Apostle’s mind, as it helps the analogy between 
the baptism of the Israelites and ours. 

V. 2. εἰς. Moses represented Christ. Cf. Gal. iii. 22. So 
Basil, De Spir. Sancto, xiv. 3, ὡς εἰ σκιὰν καὶ τύπον. All 
other renderings of εἰς, such as “under the leadership of,” 
“through” (Aug., Hnarr. in Ps. ἸΧΧΥ11.), “having confidence 
in” (Chrys.; cf. Exod. xiv. 31), are grammatically and exe- 
getically inadmissible. If Moses was the representative of 
Christ, the baptism of the Israelites under the cloud and in 
the sea was not a mere allegory, but a true baptism unto 
Christ and implied more than the baptism of John. Cf. note 
on ver. 4. 

Whether we read ἐβαπτίσαντο with B, or ἐβαπτίσθησαν 
with 8 AC Ὁ, the word implies that it was their own voluntary 
act. Their rebellion was so much the more sinful. Though 
the aor. mid. is never used in a passive sense, the aor. pass. 
has sometimes a reflexive meaning. Cf. Jelf, Gr. δὲ 364, 5; 
Buttmann, N.S. p. 46. ‘Received baptism.” ‘‘ Commise- 
runt se 86 0185 (Melanch.). The ἐν should not be pressed, 
as if the Israelites immersed themselves in the cloudy vapour, 
which they did not. It is used, as Hofmann rightly observes, 
to make the analogy between the baptism of the Israelites, 
which was not by immersion, and the baptism of Christians, 
which was, at least as a rule, by immersion, more complete. 

Μωσῆν (AD) or Moichvy (NBC). In Luke xvi. 29 
Moicéa or Macéa occurs. The prominence given to the 
man Moses in the New Test. is worthy of note, coming 
as it does after the comparative silence of the Old Test. 
Scriptures. Cf. John v. 45; ix. 28. We cannot conceive 
David or Isaiah calling himself a disciple of Moses, who was 
truly what Spinoza calls him, “a voice in the air.” It is one 
of the symptoms of the decay of a religion that the name of its 
founder should be thrust into the front. Reverence of the 
man takes the place of faith in his doctrines. Christianity, on 
the other hand, would cease to exist, if it were severed from 
the living person of its founder. The writers of the New 
Test. mark the contrast between Judaism and Christianity by 
personifying the former in Moses, as they find the latter in 
Christ, Cf. John i. 17; Heb. iii. 3. 


ΕἸ ee 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—x. 1-4, 245 


V. 8. πνευματικόν. Theod. Mops., De Wette, etc.,under- 
stand this to mean that the meat was of supernatural origin. 
Cf. Ps. Ixxvii. 24; Joseph., Antig. III. i. 6, θεῖον βρῶμα. But 
the notion that the bread, the water, and the rock had an 
allegorical (Baur), and even sacramental meaning is more to 
the purpose and must, at least, be added to the other meaning. 
Cf. Rev. xi. 8. So Chrys., De Lyra, Estius, Bengel, Osiander, 
ete. Cf. Aug., wt. sup.: “eundem potum spiritualem biberunt, 
non corporalem eundem.” On the attributive without the art. 
cf. note on iv. 19. 

τὸ αὐτό. omitted in NA, but necessary and emphatic. 
Calvin aud Heinrici correctly explain it, “the same which we 
Christians eat and drink ” ; not “ the same all of them ”, which 
is unimportant, whereas the identity of the sacrament in the 
wilderness and under the new dispensation is the central truth 
of the passage. 

Ν. 4. πόμα occurs in class. Greek; but the usual form is 
πῶμα. 

ἀκολουθούσης. From the initiatory sacrament of baptism 
the Apostle passes to the sacrament of sustenance, which 
follows the Israel of God to the end of their journey. The 
use of the word ἀκολουθούσης shows that the Apostle has in 
his mind the rabbinical tradition. that the rock smitten by 
Moses followed the Israelites through their wanderings. But 
it does not prove that he believed and gave his sanction to the 
legend (Alford), nor that he represents the water that gushed 
out of the rock as flowing by the side of the host during their 
march (Theod. Mops., Calvin, Estius, ete.). Both suppositions 
are inconsistent with Num. xxi. 5,16. On the contrary the 
Apostle purposely adds, in order to obviate the inference that 
he believed the legend and to introduce a beautiful allegorical 
use of it, that the true rock which followed the Israeltes was 
Christ. Now this cannot mean merely that the rock was a 
type of Christ (Tert., Adv. Jud. 9 ; Theod. Mops., Baur, Newt. 
Theol. p. 193), which would have required ἐστι, as in Gal. iv. 
24, Rather, the Apostle finds in the legend an allegorical 
expression of the truth that Christ was the constaut source 
of spiritual blessings to all that partook of the sacrament in- 
stituted in the wilderness. So Chrys., Theophyl., Herveus, - 
Meyer, ete. Philo (Deterius, etc., p. 176), makes a similar 


946 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


use of the allegory: πέτραν τὴν σεῤῥὰν καὶ ἀδιάκοπον ἐμφαίνων 
σοφίαν Θεοῦ, τὴν τροφὸν καὶ τιθηνοκόμον καὶ κουροτρόφον τῆς 
ἀφθάρτου διαίτης ἐφιεμένων. According to Philo there was 
a rock that could not be cleft, which was no other than the 
Word or Wisdom of God, and only such as desired incorrupt- 
ible or spiritual sustenance were nourished by it. The Apostle 
declares that the ever-present Wisdom was Jesus Christ. 
The passage is important as a statement of Christ’s pre-exist- 
ence. Cf. note on viii. 6. 

The point of these four verses is the real identity of the 
sacraments under both dispensations. Without this there is 
not much force in the Apostle’s warning. The dispensations 
differed, as law differs from Gospel, and as the covenant from 
Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, differs from the 
liberty, wherewith Christ has made us free. But though 
circumcision, to take an example, or the paschal sacrifice was 
a symbol of legal bondage, the Mosaic dispensation had also a 
spiritual side. Cf. note on xiv. 21. It had real sacraments, 
and not mere types of sacraments. Bp. Bull is surely in error 
when he says (Harm. Diss. 2, cap. 7, § 5), “that the old 
covenant laboured under a want of pardoning grace or the 
remission of sins.” The Christian Church existed under the 
Old Testament. Cf. Heb. iii. 4,5; iv. 2 (they had the Gospel 
preached to them); xi. 26 (the reproach of Christ). The 
prophets spoke of the sufferings of Christ and were inspired 
by Christ’s Spirit. Cf. 1 Pet. 1. 11, where Χριστοῦ after 
πνεῦμα is subjective gen.: “the Spirit sent by Christ,” imply- 
ing Christ’s pre-existence and presence. Stephen speaks of 
the “ Church in the wilderness” (Acts vii. 38).! The strange 


1 Cf. Mozley, Review of the Baptismal Controversy, Ὁ. 108: “‘ There has been 
but one fundamental dispensation in the world since its creation, viz. that of 
the Gospel.” He cites Augustine, Ep. 157, ὃ 14: ‘ Antiquos justos non nisi 
per eandem fidem liberatos per quam et liberamur nos, fidem scilicet incarna- 
tionis Christi.” Similarly Calvin, Inst. IV. xiv. 23; Witsius, De Cicon. Fed. 
Dei, IV. xii., where he refutes with considerable spirit the doctrine of Cocceius 
that salvation was not revealed under the Old Testament. Cf. Cocceius, Summa, 
liii. § 7. Dr. Arnold (Fragm. on the Church, Ὁ. 78) calls attention to the error 
that lurks in the summary of the present passage in the English Bible, ‘‘ The 
sacraments of the Jews are types of ours.” ‘‘ Here is the error,” he says, “ of 
making the outward rites or facts of the Jewish religion subordinate to the 
outward rites of ours, instead of regarding both as co-ordinate with one another 
and subordinate to some spiritual reality, of which both alike are but signs.” 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—x. 4-6. 247 


thing is that the Apostle should find these sacraments in the 
miracles of the Red Sea and the wilderness. But Christ also 
said that it was not Moses that had given the bread from 
heaven (John vi. 32); that is, in the sacrament of the manna 
God was actually giving Christ. These miraculous gifts 
possessed the two essential characteristics of a sacrament; for 
they were the evidence of the Divine authority of the dispen- 
sation which they inaugurated, and also symbols of the con- 
secration of Israel to God’s service. It is noteworthy that the 
Apostle recognises only two sacraments in the history of the 
Israelites, and that these correspond to the two sacraments 
of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. - 

V.5. οὐκ ἐν τοῖς πλείοσιν, that is, “very few.” Cf. 
Num. xiv. 30. All, in fact, perished, save Caleb and Joshua. 

εὐδοκεῖν ἐν τινι is an Alexandrian construction for the late 
Greek «v6. τον. Cf. LXX., 1 Mace. x. 47. 

κατεστρώθησαν, cited from LXX., Num. xiv. 16. Cf. Heb. 
uit, 17. 

V.6. Τύπος has two ethical meanings in the New Testa- 
ment; an example (1 Tim. iv. 12), and a type representing a 
spiritual truth (Rom. v. 14; Heb. ix. 24). Here it is more 
natural to understand it in the former meaning, but of an 
example to be avoided. Hence eis denotes God’s ulterior 
object in events which also answered more immediate pur- 
poses. 

ἐγενήθησαν. Cf.note oni. 30. It is unnecessary to explain 
the plur. after ταῦτα by the attraction of the predicate τύποι. 
The plur. verb occurs in class. Greek with a neuter subject 
especially when instances of a general statement are men- 
tioned, as here. Cf. Bernhardy, W.S. p. 418. So συνέβαινον, 
ver. 11, in A D. 

ἡμῶν. For the gen. cf. 1 Tim. iv. 12; 2 Pet. 11. 6. 

ἐπιθυμητὰς κακῶν. The Apostle begins with a general 
expression, to connect the sins of the Israelites with those of 
the Corinthians and include under one head the various sins 
afterwards enumerated. . 

κἀκεῖνοι, “even those men,” who had enjoyed such privi- 
leges. 

Vv. ‘7-10. The moral ground of all forms of sin is desire 
of evil things. This leads to the sin of idolatry, idolatry to 


248 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


fornication, fornication to tempting God, and tempting God 
to murmuring against Him. Thus :— 


of worship=idolatry ; 


: leading to 

2) Seana of lust = fornication 4 
Desire of evil leading to 
assumes the form of doubt= proving God; 
2. Of unbelief leading to 
of despair = murmuring. 


V.'7. The Israelites were guilty of idolatry when they 
worshipped the calf in Horeb (cf. Exod. xxxi. 6). The form 
of their idolatrous worship is mentioned to bring home forcibly 
to the minds of the Corinthians the similarity between the 
dangerous practices in which they indulged and those which 
had proved fatal to the Israelites. 

V. 8. Idolatry led to fornication. Cf. Wisd. xiv. 12, ἀρχὴ 
yap πορνείας ἐπίνοια εἰδώλων. The Israelites had been guilty 
of fornication with the daughters of Moab at an idol-feast 
(cf. Num. xxv. 1-6). At Corinth the fashionable cult was 
worship of Aphrodite, whose priestesses were harlots. But it 
is not merely the associations of idolatry, but idolatry itself 
also, that leads to sins of impurity. Chastity and holiness of 
mind and heart are produced by a realization of the spiritual 
nature of God. 

ἔπεσαν. SoNABCD. A few instances of the 1 aor. in 
class. Greek are thought to be genuine. Cf. Veitch, Greek 
Verbs, s.v. πίπτω. But it frequently occurs in LXX. and 
seems to have been much affected at Alexandria. In the New 
Test. it is found oftener in A than in any other MS. Πίύπτω 
is often used as passive of βάλλω. But here it probably im- 
plies that the agent was unseen, the fact alone visible. 

εἰκοσιτρεῖς. In Num. xxv. 9 the number is four and 
twenty thousand. Hodge and others say both are equally 
correct as round numbers fora number that was really be- 
tween them. But if the Apostle knew that the number given 
in the narrative was four and twenty thousand, why did he 
deliberately alter the “ four” into “three?’? We must sup- 
pose a lapse of memory (so Neand., De Wette, Meyer), or else 
say that the Apostle fullowed a Jewish tradition (so Evans). 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—x. 7-10. 949 


Some expositors have changed the “three” into “four,” to 
save their theory of inspiration. So Musculus. 

V.9. Fornication leads to tempting God. Sensuality is 
the parent of unbelief, both because it produces a conscious- 
ness of guilt and because it blunts the spiritual discernment. 
Unbelief at first assumes the form of doubt of God’s goodness, 
especially His faithfulness to His promises as the God that 
hears prayer and to His threatenings as the holy and righteous 
punisher of sin. Such doubts draw men on to presumption. 
They put God’s patience to the test. 

ἐκπειράζωμεν, try out and out.” Of. Heb. iii. 9, where 
ἐπείρασαν is explained by ἐδοκίμασαν, unless we read ἐν 
δοκιμασίᾳ. But even the latter reading throws light on the 
meaning of the words “tempting God.” They put Him to 
the test when He was putting them to the test. The com- 
pound ἐκπειράξω is taken from Ps. Ixxvii. (Ixxviii.) 18, and 
is used because unbelief grows ever stronger, and increases in 
guilt till it reaches a point, fixed in God’s mind, at which the 
Divine vengeance is no longer restrained. 

A reads Θεόν, NBC Κύριον, D Χριστόν. The weight of 
evidence is in favour of Κύριον. Marcion is said by Hpi- 
phanius (Contra Heres. XLII.) to have altered Κύριον into 
Χριστόν that the Apostle might not appear to assert the 
lordship of Christ. Really either reading tells against him. 
But Marcion was right in thinking that the reading Κύριον 
identifies the Lord Jehovah of the narrative with the historical 
Jesus Christ. 

ἀπώλλυντο is the reading of NB, A is illegible, CD have 
ἀπώλοντο. The imperf. expresses that they perished from 
time to time. 

V.10. Unbelief, foiled in its presumption, changes to 
despair. Of. Num. xvi. 41. The murmuring of the Corin- 
thians manifested itself in party-spirit and strife—the pride, 
boasting, foolishness and bitterness, with which Clement of 
Rome charges them. . 

ὀλοθρευτοῦ. AD have ὀλεθρευτοῦ, and in Heb. xi. 28 AD 
read ὀλεθρεύων. The form in ε is the more correct, as ὄλοθρος 
never occurs, but always ὄλεθρος. The reference is to Num, 
xvi. 41. But the words “ by the destroyer” are added by the 
Apostle, in perfect consistency, however, with the narrative. 


950 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


It was suggested probably by what is elsewhere said of the 
destroying angel (cf. Exod. xii. 23). It is evident that an 
angel of the Lord is meant, not Satan. 

V.11. After enumerating the successive steps in the fall 
of Israel, the Apostle repeats from ver. 6 that these things 
were a warning to us. 

τυπίκως. SoNABC. D, τύποι. SuvéBawev. SoNBC. 
AD, -ov. 

νουθεσία, Hellenistic ; νουθέτησις, Attic. 

κατήντηκεν. SoONBD. AC, -cev. Cf. note on κέχρημαι, 
ix. 15; ἐθηριομάχησα, xv. 32. In late Greek the perf. and 
the aor. are sometimes used interchangeably. 

Ta τέλη, Synon. with συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος (Matt. xiii. 40, 
49), and τὸ ἔσχατον τῶν χρόνων (1 Pet. i. 20). But, while 
Christ speaks of the end of the ages as future, the Apostles 
represent it as present or even past. In the Gospels it is 
connected with His second coming (Matt. xxiv. 3); in the 
Epistles with His death (Heb. ix. 26), when the consumma- 
tion of the world’s history was realized. Previously it was 
described as coming from the future to meet us; now it is 
represented as rushing from the past and “ overtaking” us. 
“Men whom the ends of the ages have overtaken” is the 
appellation of Christians. The Apostle mentions it here partly 
to warn the Corinthians of the near approach of judgment, 
partly also in contrast to τυπίκως. The temptations of Christ- 
ians are the more perilous, because they do not tread the 
low plain of earthly rewards and punishments, but belong to © 
the spiritual sphere of the kingdom of God. 

V. 12. Admonition is intended by the Spirit of God in 
recording the sins and punishments of the Israelites. 

ὥστε. Of. note on vii. 38. 

ἑστάναι, “that he stands in safety.” Of. 2 Cor.i. 24. To 
maintain the antithesis, πέσῃ must mean “lest he fall from 
a position of safety and be a castaway.” Cf. Rom. xi. 11; 
xiv. 4, The words are an allusion to κατεστρώθησαν, ver. 5. 
Chrys., Estius, De Wette, Meyer, etc., explain them of falling 
into sin and standing in righteousness. Cf. Fritzsche on Rom. 
xiv. 4, “πίπτειν peccare, et στήκειν recte facere.” But does 
Scripture represent sin as a fall, except in the metaphor of 
falling against a stumbling-stone? Cf. Hos. xiv. 1. 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—x. 10-14. 251 


V. 18. εὔληφεν, “has seized,” tenuit, like καταλαμβάνω. 
The temptation had not only solicited but seized and overcome 
them. It was now holding them fast. Cf. Luke ix. 39. 

ἀνθρώπινος, not “ originating with men” (Mosh., Olshaus.), 
but “common to men.” Cranmer: “such as foloeth the 
nature of man.” Cf, M. Anton. VIII. 46, ἀνθρωπικὸν σύμ- 
πτωμα. Theirs was not an extraordinary temptation, peculiar 
to them ; for the history of Israel had proved that others had 
passed through the same temptations, and Caleb and Joshua 
had overcome. The temptation common to men is the strength 
of their own lust. But some are tempted to deny Christ by 
the terrors of martyrdom; and Christ also had temptations 
peculiar to Himself. The Corinthians had not been called 
to resist ‘‘unto blood.”” Hence δέ marks an advance in the 
thought. “Your temptation is common to man; moreover, 
even should extraordinary temptations assail you in the future, 
God is faithful.” 

ὃς κατ. God’s faithfulness is shown in not permitting 
temptation to be too intense in degree or too long in duration. 

ὃ δύνασθε, “your strength.” No ellipse of an infin. Cf. 
Soph., Aj. 322, εἰ δύνασθέ τι, and note on iil. 2. 

ἔκβασιν, properly “a way out of a defile,” “a mountain 
pass.” Cf. Xen., dnab. 111. 20. 

τὴν, “ that way out,” which is suitable to the nature of the 
temptation. 

σύν, “simultaneously with.” So Theophyl., ἅμα. Cf. 2 Pet. 
ii. 9, ἐκ πειρασμοῦ. It means that God makes both the 
temptation and the way of escape; and the way out is not 
an after-thought. 

τοῦ δύνασθαι. Meyer rightly observes that “to bear” is 
not identical with “to escape.” ‘Trust in God’s faithfulness 
to provide a way of escape, makes the Christian strong under 
the temptation until the deliverance is accomplished. Hof- 
mann wrongly considers τοῦ δύν. gen. of identity. 

V. 14. He ends the argument from the example of the 
Israelites with a sharp admonition. All the verses from 1 to 
13 are intended to show the dangers of contact with idolatry. 

ἄπο- gives to φεύγω a quasi-local meaning. Cf. Plat., 
Phed. p. 65, φεύγει ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος. The metaphor, that 
is, of an army caught (εἴληφεν) in a defile and urged to flee 


252 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


through the mountain-pass (ἔκβασις) is kept up. In the spirit 
of the Apostle’s injunction the early Christians stood aloof 
from the games and festivals of their heathen neighbours, 
because of their close connection with idolatry. Cf. Tert., 
De Spect.4 and 11; De Idol. 11. It is not improbable that 
this abstention of the Christians occasioned the first outbreak 
of persecution. 


D. Partaking of the Idol-feasts inconsistent with Partaking of 
the Lord’s Supper. 


(x. 15-22), 


In this section we again meet with the mystical side of the 
Apostle’s teaching, the pith of which, from this point of view, 
is that every act of worship is of the nature of a sacrament, 
inasmuch as it brings the worshipper through outward means 
into communion with the unseen and spiritual.. He who par- 
takes of the idol-feasts as religious rites is in communion with 
demons. The Israelites of old were brought through their 
act of sacrifice into “communion of the altar.” The Christ- 
ian, when he partakes of the Lord’s Supper, is in communion 
with Christ. But we cannot be in communion at once with 
demons and with Christ. Shun, therefore, the idol-feasts. 

V. 15. ὡς φρονίμοις, “as being men of discernment.” 
This is not a retractation of ii. 1; and we cannot, in such 
a connection, attach to the word the slightest tinge of irony, 
asiniv. 10. Their spiritual insight was dull; but they were 
not deficient in natural intelligence and worldly wisdom. Cf. 
ix. 13. Though they had not the spirituality to discover 
the truth for themselves, they could estimate the worth of a 
doctrine suggested by another. The new conception of the 
πνευματικός caused the word φρόνιμος to sink to a much lower 
level in the New Test. than it had occupied in Plato and 
Aristotle. Plato defines φρόνησις as that state of mind in 
which the soul “ departs for the realm of the pure, eternal, 
immortal and unchangeable” (Phado p. 79). According to 
St. Paul it is the spiritual man that has knowledge; the 
φρόνιμος has been educated on the lower plane of ἐθισμός, 

not on the higher plane of ἐπιστημή. 
ο΄ ὑμεῖς, emphatic: “ Do ye now judge it; I have done so.” 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—x. 14-16. 208 


λέγω... φημί. © Affirmandi cum suasione quadam vis 
inest in φημί. Ellendt, Lew. Sophoc, “Judge ye what I 
declare.” 

V.16. The connecting particle is omitted because the ver. 
is explanatory of ὃ φημί. 

τὸ ποτήριον and τὸν ἄρτον are accus. of inverse attraction, 
that is, the antecedent is put in the case of the relat. So in 
class. Greck, Soph., Trach. 282, τάσδ᾽ ἅσπερ εἰσορᾶς χωροῦσι, 
in LXX., Ps. exvii. 22, and New Test., Matt. xxi. 42. Hof- 
mann, with his usual ingenuity, suggests that the inverse at- 
traction is here used to denote that it is the act of blessing, 
not the cup itself, that makes the κοινωνία. The Apostle 
mentions the cup first—and in this he is followed by St. Luke 
—perhaps because the sacrificial feasts of the Greeks were 
συμπόσια rather than συσσίτια. The cup is mentioned belore 
the bread in the “ Didache ” also, c. 9. 

εὐλογίας, “the cup over which a blessing is pronounced.” 
It is genit. of necessary relation, “where one term implies 
the other.” Jelf, Gr. ὃ 542. 5. ii. a. EvXoyia is the same as 
εὐχαρίστια. Cf. xiv. 16; Matt. xxvi. 26; Luke xxii. 19. For 
some centuries the Supper was indifferently called Eulogy and 
Eucharist. The reference, therefore, is to the cup of blessing 
at the passover; and, as it is called in Luke xxii. 20 ‘‘the 
cup after supper,” it is probably the cup of the Hallel, which 
was the fourth and last. Still the Apostle does not use the 
name as a mere technical term (Neander, Hofm.). Christ 
made the act of thanksgiving a reality, and imparted to it 
a deeper significance than it could have had from the lips of 
a pious Jew at the paschal meal. He introduced the new 
dispensation with an act of thanksgiving for the dispensation 
that was now about to close. But the thanksgiving became 
a prayer and a consecration and has continued as such in | 
the Church. 

The words “ which we bless,” “ which we break,”? are em- / 
pkatic. They express the sacramental acts by which the 
recipient is brought into communion with Christ. ‘ Accedit 
verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum etiam ipsum tan- 
quam visibile verbum.” Aug., Tract.in Johan. XV. 3. Breal- 
ing the bread and blessing the cup, that is, receiving the 
elements and giving thanks at the Lord’s Supper, correspond ἡ 


954 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


to the sacramental eating of the manna and drinking of the 
water out of the rock. Hence we may justly understand 
εὐλογοῦμεν with both the cup and the bread, and understand 
πίνομεν in the former clause to correspond to κλῶμεν in the 
latter. Weare not told that these are the only possible, nor 
that they are essential, sacramental acts. The essential thing 
is that the symbolical acts should be done by the recipients 
themselves, either individually or through their president 
as representing them. It is this voluntary and spiritual 
act of the recipient that brings him into communion with 
Christ in the sacrament. Cf. Justin M., Apol. I. 67, where 
the Amen of the people is spoken of as being co-ordinate with 
the thanksgiving of the president. Breaking the bread in 
Acts ii. 46 is the act of all, in accordance with the command 
of Christ, Luke xxii. 17. 

κοινωνία, that is, means of communion. Cf. note on σοφία, 
i, 80. The Supper was called communicatio before it was 
called participatio, which appears in the Vulg. It is the com- 
plement of doing it in remembrance of Christ, xi. 24. For 
Christ is in one sense absent, and in another sense present. 
Kowwvia means more than participation, as it implies that 
the whole is received by all; for this gift has no parts. 
Cf. Heb. ii. 14. But it includes also, first, that this receiving 
of Christ is the result of a mystical union with Him; and, 
secoud, that all that are in union with Christ are thereby 
brought into union with one another. Cf. Chrys., οὐ yap τῷ 
μετέχειν μόνον Kal μεταλαμβάνειν, ἀλλὰ τῷ ἑνοῦσθαι κοινω- 
γοῦμεν. The meaning of this word and the Apostle’s evident 
purpose in referring to the Lord’s Supper in this passage are 
inconsistent with the Zwinglian theory (fully stated in the 
Comment. de vera et fals& Religione, Opp. III. p. 269), that 
the sacraments are “ only badges or tokens of Christian men’s 
profession,” and the Eucharist is “ nothing more than a com- 
memoration”’ or, at best, a mere sign, not the means, of fel- 
lowship in spirit with Christ. Cf. First Helvetic Confession, 
xxi. This theory destroys the analogy which the Apostle in- 
stitutes between idolaters, who have communion with demons, 
and Christians, who in the sacraments have communion with 
Christ. To sustain the Apostle’s argument, sign and opera- 
tion must, in some way or other, intelligible or, it may be, 


» 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—x. 16. 955 


to us incomprehensible, coincide, or, in the words of the 
Second Helvetic Confession, in which Bullinger, under the 
influence of Calvin, advances beyond the Zwinglian position, 
“signa et res significate inter se sacramentalia conjungun- 
tur.” Of course, they must be distinct as well as conjoined, 
otherwise the analogy breaks down on the other side. Cal- 
vin’s theory (Inst. IV. xvii. 10), that believers receive grace 
through the sacramental act from the glorified humanity of 
Jesus Christ is, to say the least, in perfect harmony with the 
general purport of the Apostle’s teaching. Meyer’s objection 
(offered also by Schenkel, Herzog’s Real-Enc., s.v. Abend- 
mahls-streitungen), that Christ could not institute before His 
death a sacrament of communion with Hi. glorified humanity, 
if it has any force against Calvin’s view, has just as much force 
against the Lutheran doctrine, which rests on the assumption 
of the ubiquity of Christ’s glorified body. But it has no force. 
We cannot separate the merits of Christ’s death from the fulness 
of grace bestowed by Him in His state of exaltation. It is 
through mystical union with the living Christ that the believer 
receives the blessings purchased through the atoning death. 
To deny this is to gainsay the central principle of the 
Pauline theology. Justification, for instance, being a forensic 
act, is an arbitrary act, if it does not spring from union 
with Christ. 

τοῦ αἵματος. . . τοῦ σώματος, genit. of the things 
jointly possessed, as in τοιούτου γνώματος κοινωνός, “TI hold 
the same opinion with you.” The words mean that the 
believer’s spiritual life is sustained by his continued appro- ἡ 
priation of Christ, and that the efficacy of his union with 
Christ is derived from Christ’s death as a paschal sacrifice. 
The reference is to Christ’s words at the institution of the 
Supper. The figurative expression “to drink My blood and 
to eat My flesh,” used by Christ Himself, proves that there was 
close affinity betweer His teaching and the doctrine of this 
Epistle. 

It is observable that the blood and body are here spoken of 
as separated. Cf. xi. 24-28; John vi. 53, 54. The meaning 
of this cannot be that the bread is a symbol of the incarna- 
tion, the wine of the atonement. For Christ used the words 
“for you” in giving His disciples the bread and the wine. 


956 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Cf. Heb. x. 10. The shedding of His blood signified that His 
death was a sacrifice. 

The view of Erasmus, Zwingli and Baur (Newt. Theol. p. 
201), that the Apostle means the Church by Christ’s body, and 
the consciousness of being a member of His Church by the 
communion of His body, is sufficiently refuted by the co-ordi- 
nation of the body with the blood of Christ (though Zwingli 
says the blood also means the Church!) and the undoubted 
reference to the words used by Christ when He spoke of His 
body as being given and His blood as being shed. It is in- 
consistent also with the general purpose of the whole passage, 
which is to prove that, as idolaters are in communion with 
the object of their worship, so also Christians are in com- 
munion with Christ in the sacrament of bread and wine. 

κλῶμεν. The act of breaking the bread, as it is sacramental, 
is also symbolical, for it represents the sacrificial death of 
Christ, the communicant’s appropriation of Him by faith, and 
the fellowship of the Church. For this reason the sacramental 
bread came to be known as τὸ κλάσμα. So “ Didache,” ce. 9. 
Cf. Luke xxii. 17, where the distribution of the cup expresses 
the same truth as the breaking of the bread. Cf. Ignat., Ad 
Philad. 4 (longer text), εἷς καὶ ἄρτος τοῖς πᾶσιν ἐθρύφθη καὶ 
ἕν ποτήριον τοῖς ὅλοις διενεμήθη. That Christ’s body was 
not broken on the cross (John xix. 33, 36) does not render the 
breaking of the bread less symbolical of His sacrificial death. 

V.1%. Zwinghi (from whom it found its way into the 
First Helvetic Confession), Estius, Olshausen, Alford, render 
the clause ὅτε. . ; ἐσμὲν thus: ‘ Inasmuch as we the many 
are one bread, that is, one body.” But, if they understand 
ἄρτος in a sacramental sense, it is a mere tautology to add 
“one body.” If they understand it literally, it is not true 
that we are one body metaphorically in consequence of having 
eaten one and the same literal bread. Chrys., Theophyl., De 
‘Wette, Meyer, etc., thus: “ For there is one bread and there- 
fore we the many are one body.” Calvin, Beza, Bengel thus: 
“ Because there is one bread, we, the many, are one body.” 


The causal meaning of ὅτι in an antecedent occurs, it is true, — 


though but rarely, in the Apostle’s writings. Cf. xii. 15, 16; 
Gal. iv. 6. But the asyndeton is awkward. The meaning will 
be virtually the same if we render ὅτι by “ inasmuch as.” He 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—x. 17. 95 


~)] 


is proving that the sacramental bread is a means of communion 
with Christ’s body. It is so, inasmuch as the body, that. is 
the Church, is one. We all acknowledge the oneness of the 
Church, and call it the body of Christ. But the oneness of the 
Church proves the communion of all Christians with the one 
glorified body by means of the one sacramental bread, without 
which communion we, being many, would in no sense be one. 
The Apostle’s object is to prove, not the unity of the Church, ' 
but communion with Christ. The former is here introduced to 
prove the latter. But the argument is expressed tersely : “ In- 
asmuch as—one bread, one body;” that is, inasmuch as the 
unity of the body rests upon and proves the oneness of the 
sacramental bread. Cf. Eph. iv. 4. He adds, however, “we 
the many,” which indeed is necessary to his argument. Apart 
from communion through the sacramental bread with the body 
of Christ we are many; in virtue of that communion we, 
though many, are one. 

οἱ πολλοί, not “ the assembled many ” (Alford, Evans, etc.), 
but “we who are many.” ‘The art. marks the contrast between 
our being many in one sense and our being one in another 
sense. Cf. Rom. v.15, trod ἑνὸς: . . . of πολλοί, xii. 5, of 
πολλοὶ. . . ἕν σῶμα. So Aischyl., Agam. 1456, Ἑλένα 
μία Tas πολλὰς κ.τ.λ.. 

We may add two corollaries. First, since the Apostle is 
speaking, not of literal, but of sacramental bread, he cannot 
have had in his mind the notion of bread being one loaf 
composed of many graius of wheat. Second, if the doc- 
trine of transubstantiation were true, the Apostle could not 
have said “bread” in this verse, but must have said 
body.” . 

οἱ. . « μετέχομεν. Proof of the statement that the unity 
of the Church is the consequence of the oneness of the sacra- 
mental bread. For we have all the same spiritual life, having 
all received the same fulness of grace. ‘“‘ Bread”? in both 
clauses means, not literal, but sacramental bread, the means of 
communion with Christ’s body. Meréyw nowhere else occurs 
with ἐκ. The insertion of the preposition is, therefore, prob- 


11 understand the words ὥσπερ ἣν τοῦτο κλάσμα διεσκορπισμένον ἐπάνω τῶν 
ὀρέων καὶ συναχθὲν ἐγένετο ἕν, οὕτω συναχθήτω σου ἡ ἐκκλησία in the ““ Didache,”’ 
c. 9, to be an allusion to the Apostle’s statement and an attempt to interpret it.. 


8. 


258 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ably intentional. It suggests that the bread, that is, Christ, 
retains its oneness after all have received of it. We do not 
share, but we all appropriate this bread. 

V. 18, Another analogue, co-ordinate with that of the 
Lord’s Supper, proving that participation in the idol-feasts 
is idolatry and communion with the unseen. Hven under a 
typical dispensation (κατὰ capa) the material of a sacrificial 
feast has been laid upon the altar and the meal becomes for 
that reason a sacrament. The imperat. βλέπετε is co-ordinate 
with κρίνατε, ver. 15. 

κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, not “ partakers together with the 
altar,” the priest having one portion and the people another 
(Alford, etc.), but “ partakers in the altar.’ Again, the idea 
is not that God receives a part, and the worshipper a part, 
of the same sacrifice, but that the worshipper, in eating this 
meat, consisting of a sacrifice, appropriates, with his fellow- 
worshippers, the altar in its sacredness. His eating is the 
sacrament that follows the sacrifice and brings into his pos- 
‘session the blessings secured for him through God’s acceptance 
of his sacrifice. Hence the word “altar,”? not the word 
“« sacrifice.” On the other hand, he does not say “ Christ,” 
‘but “‘ the altar,” because he is not speaking of that side of the 
Mosaic ritual which is identical in meaning with the Christian 
sacrament, but refers to the typical and ceremonial side of the 
‘dispensation. But we Christians are made partakers, as Chrys. 
remarks, not of the altar merely, but of Christ Himself. Cf. 
Heb. ii. 14; xiii. 10. 

V.19. ‘The Apostle has stated that in the Lord’s Supper 
‘the believer appropriates Christ and in the Jewish sacrificial 
meal the worshipper appropriates the sacredness of the altar. 
‘The application of this truth to the case of the idol-feasts is 
‘put vividly in the form of an objection: “Do I then recognise 
-an analogy between the Lord’s Supper or the sacrificial meal 
of a Jewish worshipper and the heathen feasts? Is the thing 
offered in sacrifice to an idol of wood or stone, or is the idol 
itself, a medium of communion with any real being behind the 
visible image?” (cf. viii. 7). The answer is “ Yes.” A nega- 
itive answer would be inconsistent with the following verse and 
ill. 4. 

τί οὖν φημί, “ what then do I mean to affirm? ” 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—x. 17-20. 259 


V. 20. ἀλλώ, “nay, but”; that is, I affirm that, not only 
the idol has some power, but actually brings the worshipper 
into communion with demons. Cf. Is. xliv. 11, where by 
the “fellows ” of an idol are meant its worshippers, ‘“ who 
together formed a kind of guild and by partaking of the 
sacrificial meals are brought into a mystical union with the 
god whom they worshipped” (Cheyne). Cf. Hos. iv. 17; 
Rey. ix. 20. The Apostle seems to be citing LXX., Deut. 
xxx, 1,7, 

δαιμονίοις. The word occurs in St. Paul’s Epistles here 
and in 1 Tim. iv. 1 only. In both places it means “ devil” 
(cf. Eph. vi. 12). Maiuwv is probably derived from δαΐειν, “ to 
distribute.” Cf. Pott, Wurzelw. I. 127; though others derive 
it from the root δι, “shining.” Cf. Curtius, Grundz. p. 230. 
At any rate it is originally synonymous with θεῖον. Cf. Arist., 
Rhet. 11. xxiii. 8, τὸ δαιμόνιον οὐδέν ἐστιν GAN ἢ θεὸς ἢ θεοῦ 
ἔργον, and Xen., Mem. I. i. 1, καινὰ δαιμόνια. But simul- 
taneously with the meaning of “a divine being ” or “a divinely 
appointed lot,” a tendency is observable to use the word in a 
depreciatory sense. Of. Eur., Jo 1374, τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ μὲν χρηστά, 
tov δέ δαίμονος βαρέα; Plat., Lys., p. 223, ὥσπερ δαίμονές 
tives, “like an evil apparition”?; Apol. p. 27, εἰ & αὖ oc 
δαίμονες θεῶν παῖδές εἰσι νόθοι τινές : Symp. p. 202, πᾶν τὸ 
δαιμόνιον μεταξύ ἐστι θεοῦ τε καὶ θνητοῦ. This meaning 
became the usual one among the Stoics and, in course of time, 
so much prevailed over the other that, whereas Socrates was 
accused of introducing new divinities because he had said 
ὅτε μοι θεῖόν τι καὶ δαίμονιον γίγνεται (Plat., Apol. p. 31 C), 
Augustine, on the other hand, remarks (De Civ. IX. 19) that 
no pagan even would say to his slave by way of praise, “ De- 
monem habes.”” Add to this that a semi-personal signification 
clings to the word in the classics. Cf. Verrall’s note on Hur,, 
Med. 1110. The way was thus prepared among the Greeks 
themselves for the meaning that attaches to the word in the 
Jewish angelology, and they would have no difficulty in under- 
standing the Apostle’s use of the word in the present passage. 
The Fathers used the word in the same sense. Cf. Justin M., 
Apol. I. 5, 11. 5; both passages, however, containing notions 
not to be found in St. Paul; Tert., De Spect. 138; Origen, 
Contra Cels. VIII. 39, where he refuses to give the name of 


260 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


δαίμων to the Son of God: κατὰ μὲν οὖν ἡμᾶς τοὺς λέγοντας 
πάντας δαίμονας εἶναι φαύλους κ. τ. λ.} 

In Rom. i. 25 the Apostle says the heathen worshipped the 
creature, that is, nature. The two representations are not 
inconsistent. As the worshippers themselves understood it, 
the heathen cult rested on a deification of nature. But the 
Apostle says nothing about the demons persuading the heathen 
to worship them as gods (Waterland, Charge, etc.). Behind 
the intention of the worshipper lay the preternatural fact that 
the moral ideas represented by the heathen deities were 
actually attributes of devils. When we have said this, we 
have said all. We must not, with some of the Fathers, 
attempt to identify particular gods with certain demons and 
say, for instance, that Moloch was Mars and Chemosh Priapus 
(cf. Athanas., Orat. ad Greecos ; Theodoret, Ad Ps. ον. ; Jerome, 
In Osee ix. 11). The Apostle has nothing of this. Neither 
does he fall into the confusion met with in Tert. (e.g. De Idol. 
10), which condemns the speculations of the philosophers as 
a craft of the priests. In this matter Clem. Alex. and Origen 
represent much more truly the Apostle’s attitude. 

ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι, t.e. ἀλλὰ φημὶ ὅτι. Ἀλλά introduces an answer, 
not only when the answer negatives what is contained in the 
question, but also when it asserts more than what the question 
includes. Cf. Heb. iii. 16, “nay but did not all,” etc. So 
here: ‘Do I affirm that a graven image has any meaning 
or power? Nay but I affirm more; the demons even, God’s 
antagonists, are the beings that receive the worship offered by 
the heathen to their gods, and they impress upon their wor- 
shippers their own moral character.” Cf. note on viii. 4. 

ov Θεῷ, not “to a no-God” (Evans), for then we should 
have had the plur., but “and not to God.” The words are 
borrowed from Deut. xxxii. 17. But the Apostle uses them 
in order to lay emphasis on the mutually exclusive nature of 
communion with demons and communion with God through 
Christ. 

κοινωνοὺς τῶν δαιμονίων, not “partakers together with 
the demons” (Alford, etc.), but “ partakers together with one 


1 IT believe the word Deva degenerated in the same way. In the Vedas it 
means ‘‘ God,” in the Zend-Avesta ‘an evil spirit.”” The gods of one people 
are the eyil spirits of another. © 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—x. 20-22. 261 


another in the spiritual influence of the demons.” The con- 
trast intended is between receiving holy influences from Christ 
at the Lord’s Supper and unholy influence from demons at 
the idol-feasts. Fellowship with an object of worship and 
receiving from him are kindred notions. ‘They represent the 
two sides of all worship, the acceptance by the divinity of 
the worshipper’s offerings and the bestowal of gifts on the 
worshipper. Meals were spread for the gods in Babylon, 
Palestine and Greece. But the truth most pertinent to the 
Apostle’s purpose is that the worshipper receives from the 
Deity in the very act of making an offering. Worship is 
always sacramental. 

V. 21. The meaning of the words “you cannot” must 
not be toned down to an expression of unbecomingness. ‘To 
receive the influence of Christ and at the same moment re- 
ceive the influence of demons cannot be. The two things are 
incompatible because of the moral contrast and antagonism 
between the demons and Christ.. Cf. 2 Cor. vi. 15, 16. 

“The cup of the Lord” means the sacrament instituted by 
the Lord. Cf. xi. 20. “The cup of demons” will then mean 
the idol-feast ordained by demons. Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 1, “ doc- 
trines emanating from demons.” It is called a “cup” to 
mark the contrast sharply: ‘‘ the sacrament of demons.” 

τραπέζης. The Lord’s Supper got the name of “ table” 
because the early Christians celebrated it in connection with 
the family meal. Cf. Acts ἢ. 40, and Pliny’s Letter : “Morem 
sibi [Christianis] . . . coeundiad capiendum cibum, pro- 
miscuum tamen et innoxium.” MHeathenism turned religious 
rites into convivial feasts, and Christianity has made a house- 
hold meal a sacrament. But the Apostle here borrows the 
name from Malachi, who designates the altar of burnt-offering 
“the table of the Lord,” meaning that God’s altar is also © 
God’s table, that is, that God partakes of the sacrifice in 
common with the worshipper. Similarly, says the Apostle, the 
Supper, instituted by Christ when He was here on earth, was 
then and is now a table at which the believer is brought into 
real communion with Christ. But the table is an altar, inas- 
much as the communion rests on Christ’s atoning sacrifice 
(cf. Heb. xiii. 10). 

V. 22. παραζηλοῦμεν, in allusion to Deut. xxxii. 21. 


262 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Buttmann (N.S. p. 181) says this pres. indic. is equivalent to 
the deliberative subjunctive. Cf. Matt. xi. 3, “are we to look 
for another?” John xi. 47, “what are we to do?” The 
usage occurs occasionally im the classics (cf. Bernhardy, W.S. 
p- 396). But here it is unnecessary, and the objective meaning 
is much stronger: “Is it come to this, that we are actually 
provoking the Lord to jealousy ? ” (cf. Winer, Gr. ὃ XLI. 3). 
The notion of “jealousy ” must not be lost sight of. Though 
it holds a subordinate place in the New ‘l'est. compared with 
the element of holiness in God’s anger, it is here appropriate, 
inasmuch as the Apostle speaks of the table of demons being 
prepared in rivalry to the table of the Lord. 

μὴ . . . ἐσμέν, “ we are not stronger than He, are we ?” 
On μή in questions to which a negative answer is expected 
ef. Xen., Mem. IV. ii. 10. But in what way stronger? The 
words contain an allusion to ver.9. The Israelites, when they 
tempted the Lord, were destroyed. Are we stronger than He, 
so as to secure ourselves against His judgments? Far other- 
wise ; for “many are weak and sickly among you, and many 


sleep.” Cf. xi. 80. 


E. A Practical Summary. 
(x. 23-xi. 1). 


In the preceding section the Apostle has shown the danger 
of taking part in feasts connected with idolatrous worship. 
This is his reply to the question of the Corinthian Church 
from one point of view. All tampering with idolatry is sinful 
and dangerous. But another point of view is that of the weak 
Christian, who considers meat once consecrated to an idol to 
be henceforth defiled, and eating it to be im itself, whether at 
a sacrificial banquet or at a family meal, invariably sinful and 
polluting. The reply to the question from this side has already 
been given in Chap. viii. But the Apostle closes the section 
with a reiteration in a more practical form of his doctrine of 
liberty and love. 

V. 23. ABCD omit μοί. It crept in from vi. 12. The 
difference between the expressions in the two verses marks the 
difference in the purport of each. In vi. 12-20 he opposes 
the notions of liberty and holiness, here the notions of liberty 


oe 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—x. 22-26. 253 


and care for a brother’s weal. What the Apostle has said of 
the Lord’s Supper has served to impress on the minds of his 
readers the greatest manifestation of love ever made to the 
world. 

V. 24. S ABCD omit ἕκαστος. But it is to be mentally 
supplied. The Apostle’s doctrine of holiness involves that we 
are not our own, but God’s, and the practical lesson from it is 
that we should glorify God. The Apostle’s doctrine of lovo 
in the present passage means that we are not our own, but 
belong to the brethren, and the practical exhortation from it 
is that we should seek the welfare of others. 

τοῦ ἑτέρου, “of the other,” though it be an opponent. 

V. 25. μάκελλον, from Lat. macellum, akin to mactare, 
μάχαιρα and μάχομαι. The practice was Roman 

πᾶν, “all,” even though it may have been ἱερόθυτον, as 
meat sold in the public shambles often, if not always, was. 
ΙΠωλέω is here correctly used of the seller “qui emptorem 
querit ” (Cobet, Nov. Lect. p. 647). 

διὰ THY συνείδησιν, ‘ because of your conscience.” Calvin, 
Estius, Meyer connect the words with ἐσθίετε: “ because 
your conscience is an enlightened one, eat, without minutely 
enqniring whether the meat has been offered to an idol or not.” 
So in ver. 28 the words are connected with μὴ ἐσθίετε. We 
obtain, however, the same meaning if we connect the words, 
not indeed with avaxpivovtes, but with μηδὲν ἀνακρίνοντες. 
The reference is to an enlightened conscience: ‘‘ because your 
conscience is healthy and strong, abstain from minute en- 
quiries whether the meat has been consecrated to an idol.” 
Conscience is a reason for abstaining from enquiry. 

V. 26. From Ps. xxiii. (xxiv.) 1. This is a reason why 
an enlighteued conscience will permit a man to eat whatever 
is sold in the market (cf. Matt. xv. 11; Rom. xiv. 14; 1 ‘im. 
iv. 4; Tit. i. 15). It is only the weak Christian that from fear 
of pollution eats only herbs (Rom. xiv. 2). _ 

πληρῶμα᾽ αὐτῆς = πάντα τὰ πληροῦντα αὐτήν (Theophyl.), 
*‘the earth’s abundance.” ‘This is the active meaning of 
πληρῶμα. Some (e.g. Ellicott on Col. i. 9; Schirlitz, Lew.) 
call it the passive meaning, not so correctly. In τὸ πληρῶμα 
τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Eph. i. 23) we have again the active meaning: 
“that which fills Christ.” Cf. Fritzsche’s exhaustive note on 


264 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Rom. xi. 12, The notion of fulness is here pertinent, because 
it implies God’s blessing on all creation and, consequently, the 
lawfulness of using all created things that are fit for food. 

Κυρίου, emphatic, “ not the possession of demons, but the 
Lord’s.” 

V. 27%. The reference in ver. 25 is to a strong Christian 
eating at home. The Apostle passes on to the supposed case 
of the strong Christian eating in another’s house and in the 
presence of other guests. In these circumstances he should 
have regard to another’s conscience, and abstain, if another’s 
conscience is weak. Cf. M. Anton. I. 16, καὶ τὸ τοῖς εἰς εὐμά- 
ρειαν βίου φέρουσί τι, ὧν ἡ τύχη παρέχει δαψίλειαν, χρηστικὸν 
ἀτύφως ἅμα καὶ ἀπροφασίστως, that is, without making excuses 
for using them. An instance is not wanting in the early 
Church of a Christian relinquishing the practice of ascetism 
lest he should be a stumbling-block to the weak. Cf. Hus., 
HELENS iB. 

V. 28. τις, the weak brother. Cf. viii. 7. A Gentile 
Christian. For εἰδωλόθυτον (CD) ἱερόθυτον is read in NAB. 
So Lachm., Tisch., ‘T'reg., Westc. and Hort. Reiche and De 
Wette retain εἰδωλόθυτον. Probably ἱερόθυτον was altered by 
the copyists into εἰδωλόθυτον because it seemed to convey 
an admission that a thing offered to an idol was really sacred. 
But that is just the reason why the weak brother would have 
used the word. Origen (Contra Cels. VIII. 21) says that what 
_things he would call πρὸς ἀλήθειαν εἰδωλόθυτα, or, if he might 
be permitted to say so, δαιμονιόθυτα, Celsus, in his ignorance 
of what is truly sacred, would call ἱερόθυτα. 

τὸν μηνύσαντα. The word implies the disclosure of what 
the speaker has hitherto kept to himself, and now reveals as 
something of grave import, which he could continue to lock 
up in his own bosom, were it not that he sees a brother in 
peril. 

The words τοῦ... αὐτῆς are omittedin NA BCD. Chrys. 
has them. ‘They are better away. For the Lord’s possession 
of the earth is no reason for abstaining from certain food. 

V. 29. ἑαυτοῦ, for ceavtod. Bernhardy (W.S. p. 272) says 
the usage is frequent in the plur. in class. Greek, but in the 
sing. begins with Isocrates. Poppo (on Xen., Anab. VII. v. 5) 
and Kiihner (on Xen., Mem. I.iv. 10) are of a contrary opinion. 


MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—x. 26-81. 265 


In every alleged instance of it in the sing. the reading is 
more or less doubtful, and in the New Test. the evidence of 
the oldest MSS. is for the most part against it. Here, how- 
ever, the weight of evidence is decisively in its favour; for, 
while D reads σεαυτοῦ, N A BC have ἑαυτοῦ. 

ἱνατί (= ἵνα γένηται τί;) . . . συνειδήσεως; These words 
are sometimes explained as if they contained the reason why 
the strong Christian should condescend to the weakness of a 
brother: “why should I give occasion by a needless exercise 
of my Christian freedom, to others to condemn me?” But 
this is not the meaning of κρίνεται. The question expresses 
the reason why the strong Christian should abstain, not be- 
ceuse of his own conscience, but because of the weak brother’s 
scruples. As far as his own Christian liberty is concerned, he 
need not abstain; but he abstains from motives of Christian 
love. 

V. 30. SA BCD omit de. The verse continues the thought 
of ver. 29. 

χάριτι. Chrys., Theophyl., Grot., Hofm., etc., render it “ by 
God’s grace,” as in Eph. ii. 5, whether it means the grace 
that bestows upon us the gifts of nature for our use, or, as 
Chrys., the grace which enables the strong Christian to eat 
without defiling his conscience. But this would be too ob- 
scurely expressed by χάριτι. We must suppose it to be dat. 
of the manner, like βίᾳ, ὁδῷ, and to mean “ with thanksgiv- 
ing.” Cf. Plat., Leg. p. 796, ἐν χάρισιν. It is the ground of 
the question, “ Why am I blasphemed?” The Christian 
who eats with thanksgiving to God rescues the act from all 
contact with demons. Cf.1 Tim. iv. 5. The attitude of mind 
and state of heart renders the food a sacrament of demons or 
of Christ. The antitheses between “liberty” and “jndged,” 
between “being blasphemed” and “ giving thanks,” are 
noticeable. Liberty judged and thanksgiving reviled ! 

V. 31. The special exhortation touching abstention from 
meat offered to an idol yields to a more general principle, 
which may be couched in positive advice, that in all things 
God should be glorified. The Apostle’s doctrine of holiness 
and, as it now appears, no less his doctrine of love, ultimately 
resolve themselves into the wider conception of consecration 
to God. 


ten 


266 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ποιεῖτε, a general expression, summing up all kinds of 
action, not eating and drinking only. 

εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ. God even is glorified by your considerate- 
ness for the weak; and the Christian source of self-sacrifice is 
a consciousness of God. Epictetus has the words, εἰς τὸν Θεὸν 
ἀφορῶντα ἐν πάντι μικρῷ καὶ μεγάλῳ. Cf. Ignat., Ad Polyc. 
D, πάντα εἰς τιμὴν Θεοῦ γινέσθω. 

V. 32. Final reiteration of the exhortation to glorify God, 
but now with special reference to the question of the Christian 
Church. 

ἀπρόσκοποι, here causal: “ not causing any one to stumble.” 
In Acts xxiv. 16 it means “not stumbling.” Cf. Phil. ii. 15; 
1 Thess. iv. 12. We are reminded of the story related by 
Augustine, Hp. liv. (exviti.) Ad Januar. When his mother first 
came to Milan and found that the Church did not fast on the 
Sabbath, as she had been accustomed to do in Rome, she asked 
Ambrose, in great distress, what her duty was. He replied, 
“When I come to Rome I fast on the Sabbath; when I am 
here, I do ποὺ. This is the origin of the saying, “‘ Do in 
Rome as the Romans do.” 

ἐκκλησίᾳ. ‘The weak brother is a member of God’s Church, 
and, therefore, like the Church, not to be despised. Cf. x1. 
22. The expression is intended to intimate that Christian 
love almost personifies the Church. The Apostle delights in 
depicting what in the eyes of the world is simply a gathering 
of men professing certain beliefs, as the body of Christ, in 
union with which the individual Cuiristian becomes something 
more than an individual. The Church is to the Apostle’s 
mind a unit and an ideal. Compare the expression, “ Israel 
of God” (Gal. vi. 16). Both are in contrast to Jews and Greeks. 

V. 33. ἀρέσκω. ‘The pres. denotes endeavour, synon. with 
ζητῶ ἀρέσκειν, Gal. i. 10, where also we have the necessary 
complement of what is here said. 

συμφέρον. The word οἰκοδομεῖ (ver. 23) shows that he is 
speaking of spiritual welfare. He does not seek his own sal- 
vation immediately, but mediately, by seeking the salvation of 
others, and of many others. Cf. note on ver. 17. 

Ch. XI. 1. μιμηταί, “prove yourselves my imitators” ; 
stronger than μιμεῖσθε. Cf. note on iv. 16; 1 Thess. i. 6; 
n. 14; ὃ Thess. i. 7: 





MEAT OFFERED TO IDOLS.—x. 31-xr1. l. 267 


καθὼς κἀγὼ Χριστοῦ. Christ pleased not Himself (Rom. 
xv. 3). Whenever the example of Christ is mentioned in the 
New Test., the reference is to entire unselfishness in one form 
or another (cf. Phil. 11. 4, 5). Further, St. Paul’s imitation of 
Christ is not precisely the same thing as that of St. Peter, who 
witnessed the life of Jesus (cf. 1 Pet. 11. 21). We do not find 
in St. Paul’s Epistles the notion of Christ’s earthly life being 
a pattern or ideal, after which men ought to fashion their 
lives. His mind is absorbed in the greatness of the self-denial 
manifested by the Son of God in taking upon Him the form 
of a servant and humbling Himself by His obedience unto 
the death of the cross. 

The first verse of chap. xi. belongs to the end of chap. x., 
and forms a most fitting close to the whole discussion respect- 
ing things offered to idols. 


FIFTH DIVISION. 


ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES. 
(xi. 2-34). 


A. Women Publicly Praying with Head Uncovered. 
(xi. 2-16). 


V. 2. δέ is more than transitional. The emphatic position 
of ἐπαινῶ intimates a change of tone, and the words pou 
μέμνησθε contain an allusion to μιμηταί μου: “But even if 
you do not fully prove yourselves tv be imitators of me, yet 
I acknowledge that you bear in mind the instructions.” The 
praise bestowed in this ver. looks forward, however, to the 
censure also of ver. 17. 

πάντα, not object of μέμνησθε (Cajet., Hrasm.), which is 
μου, but accus. of reference, which-occurs in the New Test. 
only in St. Paul’s Epistles. Theod., Ambrosiast., Hervzeus 
understand this clause to be ironical. But it would be in- 
consistent with the evident contrast between this clause and 
- ver. 17. Such irony at the beginning of an argument would 
be wanton. Cf. note on viii. 1. 

τὰς παραδόσεις, the same thing as κάθως παρέδωκα ὑμῖν. 
Similarly in 2 Thess. ii. 15, τὰς παραδόσεις is explained by ἃς 
ἐδιδάχθητε. By this circumlocution he avoids such an ex- 
pression as “ my traditions.” For they were not merely the 
Apostle’s own advice (cf. vii. 25), but instructions which he 
had himself received. He could call them τὴν παραθήκην μου, 
but they were the παραδόσεις of Christ (cf. 1 Tim. i. 12). 
His former doctrines as a Pharisee the Apostle does call his 


own traditions, Gal. 1. 14. 
268 


ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.—XI. 2, 3. 269 


κατέχετε, synon. with κρατεῖν, Mark vii. 3; 2 Thess. ii. 15. 
It means “holding fast”? what has been delivered to one’s 
keeping. Cf. 1 Tim. i. 18, and espec. 2 Tim. ii. 2, where 
παράθου expresses the act of committing to another’s keeping 
what has first been committed for that purpose to one’s own. 
It was the term used among the Jews to denote the doctrines 
which the Rabbis professed to have received from the fathers 
(cf. Matt. xv. 2, 3, 6). We may safely infer that the Apostle 
also means a deposit of truth which he has received and 
delivers to others. Such a deposit must consist, not of in- 
structions in practice and ritual only, but also of doctrines and 
principles, from which he deduces practical admonitions and 
directions for public worship (cf. Gal. i. 12). The Apostle 
taught, not his own inventions, but the revelation of Jesus 
Christ, together with the superstructure of truth which he was 
enabled by the Spirit of God to raise upon it. That founda- 
tion is the παράδοσις. He mentions it here to soften the 
seeming harshness and egotism of ver. 1. How. he had 
delivered these traditions to the Corinthians the Apostle does 
not here say. His readers knew. It may have been by word 
of mouth or in a former letter. Cf. 2 Thess. 1. 15; Tert., 
De Cor. 3, ‘an et traditio nisi scripta non debet suscipi? ” 
and EKus., Hist. Eccles. III. 25. 

Vv. 3-15. The Apostle proceeds to mention an impro- 
priety which had crept into the Church assemblies, but con- 
cerning which he does not appear to have hitherto given 
instruction. In praising them he delicately takes on himself 
the blame of not having warned them beforehand. 

We are met by some preliminary questions. 

First, does the Apostle discuss the opposite case, that of 
men praying with heads veiled? Chrys. thinks he does; and 
the several references made to the duty of men to uncover 
their heads in prayer renders it probable that the Apostle has 
both cases in his*mind. It has been usually lost sight of by 
expositors. ἡ 

Second, how is the position taken by the Apostle in this 
passage consistent with his injunction in xiv. 34, that the 
women should keep silence in the Churches? Calvin says 
the Apostle treats of one subject at a time. But if he intends 
the women not to pray at all in public, it is a needless waste 


270 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


of words to discuss the question of the veil. Tertullian 
(Contra Mare. V. 8) thinks he permitted the women to pray 
and prophesy, but not to teach. But λαλεῖν in xiv. 34 means 
that special form of teaching which is prophesying. Meyer 
and others suggest that in our passage he is speaking of the 
smaller meetings for devotion, such as might be held in a 
dwelling-house. But there is no hint of any such distinction, 
and the same reason, that is, her subjection to the husband, 
is assigned in xiv. 34 for enjoining silence on the woman 
which is here used to prove that she ought to veil her face; 
and, therefore, her subjection would be just as much a reason 
for silence in the smaller assemblies as in the larger ones. 
Why may we not suppose that the injunction of silence had 
not occurred to the Apostle? When it does occur to him 
he bases it on the truth that underlies the symbolism of the 
present passage. 

Third, it is remarkable that the injunction to men to pray 


uncovered and to women to pray with veiled faces is peculiar - 


to the Christians. Among the Greeks men and women prayed 
bareheaded. Cf. Macrobius, Sat. III. vi. 7. Plutarch, Qwest. 
ftom. 14, says the Romans worshipped with the head covered ; 
and among the Jews the men veiled their faces in prayer. 
The talith ‘dates back to the time of Christ and probably 
earlier” (Conder, Handbook to the Bible p. 194). We must, 
therefore, suppose that we have here an example of a distinctly 
Christian observance, that the men should pray without a 
head-dress, the women with faces veiled. Perhaps, as Hil- 
genfeld conjectures, the difference between the Jewish and 
the Greek customs may have occasioned the confusion in the 
Corinthian Church. Lightfoot (Hor. Heb.) supposes these 
men were Judaisers. If so, we should arrive at the odd result 
that in Corinth the Judaising party consisted mostly of the 
men, and the Hellenising party of the women. Anyhow, the 
reference in ver. 2 to the ordinances or traditions suggests 
that the use of the veil by the women and by them alone was 
a peculiarly Christian arrangement, imposed on the Churches 
partly to distinguish Christian worship from that of Jew or 
Greek, partly to symbolize the mystical doctrine of the head- 
ship of Christ. 

Women are enjoined to veil their faces, if they pray or 


ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.—xXI. 3-5. 271 


prophesy in the Church assemblies, for three reasons: first, 
the veil isa symbol of the woman’s subjection to the man in 
the Christian order (vv. 3-5) ; second, it is a symbol of her 
subjection in the order of creation (vv. 6-12); third, this 
symbolism is suggested by nature herself (vv. 18-15). 


(1) The Christian Order. 
(vv. 3-5). 


The Christian order is that the man is head of the woman; 
that Christ is head of the man; that God is head of Christ. 
But the Apostle begins with the second term of the series, 
Christ’s headship, because it confers on this order its peculiarly 
Christian character. ‘Every man” must be restricted to 
believers. So Chrys., De Wette, Meyer, etc. Apart from 
Church order it might with equal truth be said that Christ 
is head also of the woman (cf. Eph. i. 22). Again, a special 
meaning must be assigned to κεφαλή. For, first, it must 
denote here more than authority; in point of authority Christ 
is head of angels as well as men. Second, though there is a 
difference between the headship of God and the headship of 
Christ, and between the headship of Christ and that of the 
man, still a common element is discernible in the three, and 
that is authority springing from union. The man is head of 
the woman in virtue of the marriage-union; Christ is head 
of the man in virtue of union through faith; God is head of 
Christ in consequence of fatherhood and sonship. The three 
headships thus differ from one another as much as the different 
kinds of union on which they rest differ; as much, that is, as 
marriage differs from faith and both from sonship. Third, 
these three forms of union have special reference in our 
passage to Church order and the work of redemption. For 
instance, the authority of the man over the woman is here 
based on the Christian idea of marriage as the marriage-union 
borrows new characteristics from the union between Christ 
and the Church. Again, the authority of Christ over the man 
is based on Christ’s redemptive work and has for its aim the 
advancement of Christ’s kingdom. Once more, the authority 
of God over Christ, though ultimately derived from God’s 


272, THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


fatherhood, actually regards Christ, not only as Son, but as 
God-Man and Mediator. Bringing together, therefore, the 
notions included in the term “head,” the headship of which 
the Apostle speaks means authority having union for its 
ground and redemption for its object. 

This subordination of the woman to the man in Church 
order is perfectly consistent with the equality of the man and 
the woman in spiritual status. It is not improbable that the 
custom censured by the Apostle was an attempt to symbolize 
by unveiling the face in public worship the spiritual equality 
of the woman. Since the time of Socrates there was a growing 
tendency to ameliorate the social position of women among the 
Greeks, and it received a new impulse from contact with the 
Romans, especially in a Dorian city such as we may suppose 
Corinth to be still in part. Christianity would strengthen this 
“enthusiasm of humanity,” and the doctrine of Christian liberty 
would become the occasion of an abuse. But the Apostle 
maintains the perfect consistency of personal equality and 
social subordination, and shows that Christianity consecrates 
both to the service of Christ, by elevating personal into 
spiritual equality and converting social difference into Church 
order. 

Chrysostom refers the headship of God over Christ to the 
eternal fatherhood and sonship (cf. note on 111. 23). But his 
argument breaks down inasmuch as the Apostle is speaking 
of subjection, not mere subordination. Chrysostom says that, 
if the Apostle were speaking of rule and subjection, he would 
have used the analogy of master and servant rather than that 
of husband and wife. But, first, the Apostle evidently sup- 
poses that the relation between husband and wife involves rule 
and subjection (ver. 9); second, the relation of husband and 
wife involves union as well as subjection, and the analogy in 
this place requires the one notion no less than the other. 
It follows that the headship of God over Christ refers to the 
mediatorial office of Christ as God-Man. So even Theodoret 
understands it: κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα τοίνυν ἡμῶν κεφαλή" 
οὐκοῦν καὶ κατὰ ταύτην αὐτοῦ κεφαλὴ ὁ Θεος. 

V.3. ἡ κεφαλή. . . κεφαλή. The article adds emphasis, 
but otherwise does not change the meaning. Expressed with 
the first κεφαλὴ its force may be supposed to run on as far as 


ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.—xXI. 8,4. 273 


the second and third. Cf. Eph. ii. 14, ἡ εἰρήνη ἡμῶν, “our 
(only) peace.” Cf. Buttmann, N.S. p. 109. 

V.4. κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων. Κάλυμμα is easily supplied. 
Cf. Esther vi. 12, LXX., λυπούμενος κατὰ κεφαλῆς. Chrys. 
thinks κώλυμμα is omitted that long hair as well as the veil 
may be included in the prohibition (ver. 15). 

καταισχύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτοῦ. Beza, Grot., Est., Beng., 
Neand., Hodge, etc., understand the word “head” in the 
literal sense only. But, first, this would completely sever the 
verse from the series of subordinations mentioned in ver.,3; 
and, second, the opposite notion to that of shaming one’s head 
is said in ver. 7 to be the manifesting of God’s glory by hav- 
ing the head covered. Cajet., De Wette, Kling, Evans, etc., 
understand the word in the metaphorical sense only, that is, 
as meaning Christ. But as the argument in ver. 6 is intended 
to prove that it is a shame to the woman herself to worship 
with head uncovered, the literal meaning must be included in 
ver. 5 and, consequently, in ver. 4. Besides, it is a necessary 
part of the allegory to maintain the analogy between the 
glory and shame of the natural and the glory and shame 
of the spiritual head. The man shames his natural head by 
wearing a veil; that is, he shames himself by wearing a 
symbol of subjection to the woman, whereas Christ has given 
the man supremacy over the woman in Church order, and that 
supremacy is expressed by the symbol of an unveiled face. 
Again, the man that shames his natural head shames also his 
spiritual head; that is, he that shames himself by wearing a 
symbol of subjection to the woman, shames Christ, to whom 
alone God has subjected him. It follows that, in the case of 
the man, the symbol of his supremacy over the woman is, at 
the same time, the symbol of his subjection to Christ. This. 
double allegorical use of the symbol is in accordance with 
Greek sentiment. Long hair was a sign at once of a man’s 
effeminacy and of his pride. It was both a disgrace and a 
conceit. 

προσευχόμενος ἢ προφητεύων. Cf. note on xii. 10. It isa 
hint of the coming discussion concerning spiritual gifts. In 
the early years of the second century Justin M. speaks of the 
presiding brother as offering extemporaneous prayer according 
to his gifts (ὅση δύναμις αὐτῷ). 

zt 


274 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


V.5. As the man shames himself and Christ by veiling his 
face, so the woman shames herself and the man by worshipping 
with face unveiled. Here also the Apostle refers to the literal 
and to the metaphorical head. The woman that unveils her 
face in public worship shames herself, inasmuch as she declines, 
to her shame, to wear the badge of her subjection in Church 
order tu the man. Among the Greeks the hetzre only went 
unveiled. But she shames her husband also, inasmuch as she 
transgresses the Divine law that ordained her subordination, 

ἀκαταλύπτῳ τῇ κεφαλῇ, “with the head uncovered”; modal 


dat. Cf. Col. ii. 11; Phil. i. 18. 


(2) The Order of Creation. 
(xi. 5 fin.—12). 


The Church order is consistent with and based upon the 
order imposed upon the man and the woman at their creation ; 
and the veil, which the Apostle ape ds as a symbol of the 
Wwoman’s subjection in Church order, has its analogue in the 
long hair which nature has given her. ‘I'he woman’s long hair 
ἜΝ this symbolical meaning, inasmuch as it is a Εἴτε, ἴο ἃ 
woman to be shorn. 

V.5 fin. ἕν. For this use of the neut.‘in the predicate 
when the subject is not neut. cf. ii. 8; 1 Tim. v.9. The 
subject is ἡ γυνή, not the uncovering of the head, as is evident 
from τῇ ἐξυρημένῃ. . 

V.6. He proves that a woman that uncovers her head is 
‘one and the same with a woman whose head is shorn or 
shaven. The proof is that woman’s long hair is intended by 
nature and understood by all nations to be a symbol of her 
subjection to the man. A married woman that threw off the 
yoke had her head shorn as a symbol of her shatne. This, the 
Apostle argues, shows the fitness of the veil’to be a symbol 
‘of the same subjection in the Christian order. In the Church 
the veil is added to the symbol of long hair, because the sub- 
jection which nature has imposed upon the woman receives a 
special character when it enters into the Christian series of 
‘ssubordinations. 

ei yap ov. Cf. note on vii. 9. 

κείρασθαι, aor., to denote the act of cutting the hair short; 


ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.—XI. 5-7. 275 


ξυρᾶσθαι, pres., to denote the state of having been shaven, 
which heightens and perpetuates her shame. ‘The form ξυράω 
is later than Evpéw, and is not Attic. 

V.'7. This universal sentiment of shame that attaches to a 
woman that uncovers her head in public is vindicated by the 
natural order established at the first by the Creator. It is 
true the type ordained by God in nature of the order intro- 
duced into the Church is imperfect. For Christ, as the second 
term of the series, imparts a new significance to all the other 
terms and to the union that links them together. According 
to this verse the man is distinguished from the woman, first, 
in that he is the glory of God, while she is the glory of the 
man; second, in that he is the image as well as glory of 
God, while she is not the image of the man. Both points of 
difference are here mentioned as reasons why the man should 
be unveiled, the woman veiled, in public worship. 

First, by “being the glory of God,” we are, no doubt, to 
understand that the man’s place in the natural series of sub- 
ordinations manifests God’s glory. But God’s glory consists, 
partly at least, in authority. The man, therefore, declares the 
glory of God in the fact of his delegated authority over the 
woman. The woman, on the other hand, manifests the glory 
of the man. But the man’s glory, as distinguished -from 
God’s, consists in subjection. The final glory of the Son of 
God Himself, in so far as He is Man, will be His subjection 
to God (xv. 28). It follows that the woman manifests man’s 
glory by manifesting, in her subjection to him, his subjection 
to God. We have, accordingly, in this verse the same con- 
ception, regarded from the point of view of the natural order, 
which the Apostle has already stated in his explanation of the 
Christian order. 

Second, the word “image ”’ is evidently an allusion to Gen. 
i, 27. Chrys, Theod., Severian (Out.), etc., infer from this 
verse that the image of God consists in dominion. But this 
is included rather in the term “glory”; that is, in the re- 
lation in which God stands to the man and the man to the 
woman. Image differs from glory as the ray of light that has 
separated itself from the sun differs from the light that con- 
stitutes the sun’s self-manifestation. Image means affinity of 
nature or likeness in attributes to a Divine archetype. Glory 


276 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


is the manifestation of God’s attributes. In this sense it is 
said in Heb. i. 2 that Christ is, not only the impress of God’s 
substance, but also the effulgence of God’s glory. Man like- 
wise is the image of God, the similitude in a creature of the 
uncreated Creator. But he is also the glory of God, that is, 
the self-manifestation of God in a created being. To say that 
any creature is the glory of God without being the image of 
God is pantheism. Buta creature may be the image of God 
without being His glory. The woman, in the Apostle’s series 
of subordinations, is not the image of the man, but is, equally 
with the man, the image of God. She possesses those attri- 
butes that fit her to take a place in the series of subordinations 
_which constitute the natural and of those which constitute 
the Christian order of things. If she were the man’s image, 
and not God’s, she would be the image of an image, which 
are words without meaning, unless she is an image of the 
archetype. 

ὑπάρχων, “ subsisting as.” Cf. Phil. i. 6. 

Vv. 8,9. He proves that the woman is the glory of the | 
man in the natural order, that is, that it is her place to mani- 
fest the man’s subjection to God by her own subjection to the 
man. The proof is twofold: First, as a matter of historical 
fact the woman is from the man; for “ the rib, which the Lord 
God had taken from the man, made He a woman” (Gen, ii. 
22, 23). But, second, the explanation of this fact must be 
sought in the Divine purpose that brought it so to pass; for 
the woman was created because of (διά) the man, to be his 
helpmeet (Gen. ii. 18). Ἐκτίσθη differs from ἐστι as purpose 
from fact. 

καὶ yap ov differs slightly from οὐδὲ γάρ. The latter phrase 
denotes that the thing mentioned is a smaller matter than 
other things; the former expresses a certain causal relation 
between the Divine purpose and its outcome. 

V.10. The inference from the natural order is the same 
as from the Christian order—that the woman ought to cover 
her head. 

ἐξουσίαν, “ authority,” used by metonymy for the symbol 
of authority, whether it be the veil in the Christian order or 
the long hair in the natural order. JIrenzeus (i. 8, 2) substi- 
tutes κάλυμμα, in citing the verse. For a similar metonymy 


ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.—xI. 7-10. 277 


we are referred to Diod. Sic. I. 47, τρεῖς βασιλείας τῆς κεφα- 
λῆς, 1.6. diadems, and Heinrici aptly cites τομήν, xii. 23, “a 
covering in token of honour.” So in Num. vi. 7 the symbol 
of a Nazarite’s consecration to God is designated εὐχὴ Θεοῦ. 
The appositeness of this citation is not affected by the dif- 
ference between the symbol of one’s own authority and that 
of another’s, since authority and subjection are opposite sides 
of the same fact. The metonymy of using the name of the 
sign to denote that of which it is the sign is, of course, of 
frequent occurrence. Cf. 2 Cor. iii. 15, κάλυμμα ἐπὶ τὴν 
καρδίαν αὐτῶν. But it justifies the opposite metonymy, in 
which the name of the thing signified is used for the name 
of the sign. Of the numerous explanations that have been 
offered the only two others that deserve to be mentioned 
are unsatisfactory enough. lL. Capellus, while admitting that 
ἐξουσία denotes the veil as a sign of subjection, thinks the 
Apostle may have given it this name because the Hebrew word 
for veil has also the meauing of authority. Wordsworth ex- 
plains the authority to be the woman’s. 

διὰ τοὺς ἀγγέλους. Baur proposes to omit the words as a 
gloss, against all MS. evidence. Tert. (Contra Mare. V. 8; 
De Virg. Vel. 7) thinks the reference is to the fallen angels, 
who might be enticed to lust by seeing the women’s faces. 
The grosser form of this interpretation refutes itself, thoagh 
it is apparently accepted by Hausrath (Der Ap. Paul. p. 28). 
Bat it has been resuscitated in a more refined form and in 
reference to good angels by Hofmann, who thinks that any 
disturbance of the established order of creation by the woman’s 
refusal to abide in subjection to the man, would become a 
temptation to angels to depart from their appointed place in 
that order and assume the place of the man in relation to the 
woman. Ambrosiaster, Herveus, Cajetan consider the angels 
to be Christian priests or ministers of the Church. But this 
application of the word belongs to apocalyptic language. 
Chrys., Aug. (De Trin. XII. vii. 10), Grotius, Estius, Wolf, 
Rickert, Meyer, Neander, De Wette, etc., think the reference 
is to the presence of the holy angels in the Church assemblies, 
and Theod. and others say the Apostle is speaking of the 
protecting angel of every individual Christian, in which case 
we should probably have had τὸν ἄγγελον αὐτῆς (cf. Matt. 


278 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


xvi. 10; Acts xii. 15). But it seems better not to limit the 
reference to the presence of the angels in the Church assem- 
bles. The Apostle has introduced into the discussion the 
natural order of subordinations. ‘he holy angels behold the 
moral beauty of this order of creation and even occupy a place 
in the natural order, which they have not in the Church. In 
iv. 9 he has divided the kosmos into angels and men. In 
1 Tim. v. 21 he charges Timothy before God and Christ Jesus 
and the elect angels. The Psalmist’s declaration that he would 
play the harp before Elohim is rendered by the LXX. ἐνάντιον 
ἀγγέλων. In Luke xii. 8 Christ says He will confess His con- 
fessors ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀγγέλων τοῦ Θεοῦ. In our passage the 
angels are mentioned as examples to the woman of holy crea- 
tures that keep their place of subordination. Their place is to 
be ministering servants unto men; yet they rebel not. They 
are ministering as well as worshipping spirits (Heb.i. 14). And 
they have their reward when through the Church the manifold 
wisdom of God is made known to the principalities and powers 
in heavenly places. But we cannot exclude the notion of the 
moral influence of the Christian woman’s holy humility on the 
minds of exalted creatures, who remember that they have 
never experienced the fierce conflict of temptations that assail 
the Church on earth. The moral influence of goodness is high 
as heaven, wide as the universe, and endless as eternity. 

V. 11. A correction or limitation of the statement that in 
the Christian order and in the natural order the woman is in ἡ 
subjection to the man. In the Christian order the man is 
not without the woman, just as in the natural order he has 
his birth through the woman. 

πλήν, though derived from πλέον (Curtius, Grundz. p. 282), 
sometimes introduces a correction, as here. Cf. Matt. xxvi. 
39; Winer, Gr. ὃ LITI. 7. The best MSS. read οὔτε γυνὴ 
χωρὶς ἀνδρὸς οὔτε ἀνὴρ χωρὶς γυναῖκος. 

According to Grotius the meaning is that Christ has not 
redeemed either man or woman exclusively of the other. This 
is much too narrow. So also is the interpretation of Hofmann 
and Heydenreich, who consider “in the Lord” to be predicate : 
“Neither is the woman in the Lord without the man,” etc. 
The Apostle refers, not to personal state (Heinrici), but to 
Church order. Though the woman is subject to the man, both 


ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.—xI. 10-12. 279 


are mutually dependent. Marriage and rearing children be- 
comes a Christian and hallowed service to Christ (cf. vii. 14). 
The Christian unit of society is the family, not the city, not the 
empire ; and when these were crushed under the heavy heel of 
barbarian hordes, the family life of the conquerors, when they 
became Christians, gave birth to a new civilization. ‘This verse 
should be a corrective of any false or exaggerated interpreta- 
tion of the Apostle’s praise of the unmarried state in chap. vii. 
The life of the unmarried woman, though it is in one direction 
more intense, is at the same time less complete, than the life 
of the married woman. 

ἐν Κυρίῳ, ‘‘ in (the sphere of) the Lord Jesus Christ ;” not 
“Deo jubente” (Beza, Olshaus.). It denotes the Christian 
order, while ἐκ Θεοῦ expresses the natural order. Cf. iv. 
15, 17. 

V.12. The Apostle has already discovered in the history 
of man’s creation an allegorical intimation of the woman’s 
subjection to the man in the Christian order. In the law by 
which the race is perpetuated he sees also an allegory of the 
Christian mutual dependence of both. For whereas the first 
woman was taken out of the man, the race is perpetuated 
by birth from the woman; and in both, the first origin and 
every subsequent origin, the Apostle acknowledges the hand 
of God; so that the dependence of the man on the woman 
bears the impress of a Divine appointment no less than the 
subordination of the woman to the man. This inter-depen- 
dence in the order of nature is an allegory in which the mutual 
co-operation of the man and the woman in the higher order 
of the Church is typified. 


(3) Natural Sentiment. 
(x1. 18-15). 


Our interpretation of these verses will depend on the mean- 
ing we assign to the word φύσις. Four explanations of it 
have been offered by different expositors: (1) the custom of 
civilized nations (Chrys., Calvin, Grotius) ; (2) the physical 
constitution of things (Osiander, Hofmann, Evans); (3) the 
constitution of man (De Wette) ; (4) the inborn sense of 
seemliness (Bengel, Meyer, etc.) That the word sometimes 


280 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TUE CORINTHIANS. 


bears the first of these meanings and is equivalent to τὰ ἐν 
πάσῃ χώρᾳ κατὰ ταὐτὰ νομιζόμενα (Xen., Mem. LV. iv. 19) 
is certain. Cf. Dem., De Coron. p. 317, ἡ φύσις αὐτὴ τοῖς 
ἀγράφοις νόμοις Kat τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις ἤθεσι διώρικεν. In 
later authors it is used in this signification as the equivalent 
of the “jus naturale”? of Roman Law. The LXX. furnishes 
no instauce; for Wisd. xiii. 1 is certainly not one. ‘I'he ob- 
jection to this rendering in our passage is that custom rests 
on sentiment. There is a “nature”’ anterior to custom. ‘The 
third rendering is but a modification of the second. But the 
physical constitution of things cannot teach us anything as to 
what is seemly or unseemly unless there is a corresponding 
sense of it in men, and, on the other hand, no sentiment of men 
would be adduced by the Apostle unless it were grounded on 
an objective difference in the constitution of things. We must 
combine all these meauings, more especially the second and 
the fourth; so that the word will mean ‘‘a sense of what 
is seemly springing from a real distinction in the constitution 
of things.” Here the constitution of things must mean the 
physical constitution of man and woman, the φύσις τῶν ὅλων 
as it is manifested in the φύσις αὑτοῦ (cf. Rom. ii. 14). The 
basis of the physical constitution of man and woman is the 
distinction of sex. ‘‘Nature” includes this and the entire 
organisin that rests upon it, together with all those sentiments 
to which this physical constitution gives birth. What this 
“nature”? teaches us is that to wear the hair long is to the 
man a disgrace, to the woman an honour. Of this the Corin- 
thians can judge by their own sense of what is seemly. If 
they are not πνευματικοί, so as to understand the meaning of 
the allegory, at least they are @povimoe (x. 15) and can judge 
the matter by instinctive or unconsciously formed sentiment 
(ἐν ὑμῖν αὐτοῖς). The reflexive pron. is not here used for 
the reciprocal, as it often is in later Greek. 

V. 13. τῷ Θεῷ προσεύχεσθαι. This is added becanse it is 
our appearing before God in the Church assemblies that makes 
seemliness in the Church more incumbent than seemliness in 
our intercourse with the world. The Apostle omits prophesy- 
ing in this verse (cf. ver. 5), because in the religion of natural 
sentiment there is prayer but no prophesying or preaching. 

Vy. 14, 15. It was the fashion among the upper classes 


ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.—xXI. 13-16. 28] 


in Athens to wear the hair long as if it were an honour, and 
κομᾶν came to have the secondary meaning of being proud. 
The Apostle distinguishes from these conveutionalities the 
teaching of nature, which instructs men and women to cover 
themselves. ‘This natural modesty.is the more intense in the 
woman than in the man, so that she is instinctively conscious 
that even nature’s gift of long hair is for a covering. It is 
nature’s vesture. Hence he uses περιβολαίον, “ a covering,” 
which, like πέπλος, means more than κάλυμμα, “a veil.” 

ἀντί, not “ instead of using a veil” (Grimm, Lez.), but “as 
a covering.” So ἀντὶ ἕρκους (Basil), ““ for a defence.” In 
prayer to God the veil is worn in addition to the long hair, 
partly to express the voluntariness of the worship (Chrys., 
Ambrosiaster), partly to mark the difference between worship 
and social life. 

In previous verses the Apostle has spoken of the man’s 
shorn head and the woman’s long hair as symbols of subjec- 
tion, in the one case to the man, in the other to Christ. Here 
he describes the man’s long hair as a dishonour and the 
woman’s long hair as her glory. The apparent inconsistency 
disappears when we call to mind that the man’s subjection to 
Christ is his honour and that the woman’s glory consists in 
being the glory of the man by subjection to him. 

V. 16. Before finally dismissing the subject the Apostle 
sharply rebukes the contentiousness that insisted on peculiar- 
ities of dress as a symbol of Christian equality, while the 
customary dress was itself a symbol, if only rightly under- 
stood, of the equally essential and, in the public assemblies, 
more prominent truth of Christian order, on the maintenance 
of which the efficiency and success of the Church depended. 
Lachm. and Evans are surely mistaken in connecting this 
verse with what follows. The οὐκ Ἐπαινῶ of ver. 17 corre- 
sponds to the ἐπαινῶ of ver. 2. 

δοκεῖ, not “seems” nor “ thinks he may dare ” (Winer, Gr. 
§ LXV. 7, 62), but “is minded ”’ (De Wette, Meyer, etc.) The 
word contains a rebuke. It intimates a contrast between the 
custom of the Churches and the act of the opinionated in- 
dividual who puts himself forward to contend against them. 
Cf. iii. 18; vii. 40. 

φιλόνεικος, he who fights for victory, not for truth (Hstius). 


262 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Like our “ contentious,” the word has passed from the mean- 
ing of loving contention to express the habit of creating it. 

συνηθείαν. Theod., Grot., Est., Hofm., Alford, etc., think 
the practice meant is the unveiling of the women in the 
Church assemblies. Chrys., Calvin, Meyer, Riickert, De Wette, 
etc., explain it to mean contentiousness. The objection is 
that we can scarcely call contentiousness a custom. But, 
as Meyer observes, this lends point to the rebuke. Some in 
Corinth had allowed contentiousness to run into a habit. Per- 
haps the word alludes to the national character of the Greeks. 
“We, Christians, are not partisans and litigious men, as you 
Greeks are known to be the world over.” ‘This interpretation 
is confirmed by xiv. 33, where the Apostle says that in all the 
Churches peace, not dissension, prevailed. Moreover, the re- 
ference to himself and fellow-Apostles, as distinguished from 
the Churches, would surely be out of place, if the Apostle 
referred to the unveiling of the women in the Church assem- 
blies. In referring to the consent of Churches, not of officers, 
the Apostle is followed by ecclesiastical writers down to the 
time of Athanasius. 

That the Apostle’s censure had the desired effect we know. 
Tertullian (De Virg. Vel. 2 and 3) says that, not only the 
married women, but also the virgins wore a veil in most of 
the Churches founded by Apostles or apostolic men. He men- 
tions the Corinthian Church as one of those that obeyed ‘the 
Apostle’s precept. In Apol. 30 he says that men uncovered 
the head in prayer. Chrysostom tell us that in his time the 
injunction imposed by the Apostle was universally obeyed. 
Bat Basil (Hp. 237) says that the Church of Neo-Cesarea 
had, contrary to the practice of their former bishop, Gregory, 
permitted the men to pray with their head covered. Heinrici 
refers to the sculptures of the Catacombs. The men wear the 
hair short; the women have a close-fitting head-dress (the 
ricinium), or the palla over the shoulders. 


B. Abuse of the Lord’s Supper. 
(xi. 17-34). 


V.17%. ABC Vulg. read τοῦτο δὲ παραγγέλλω οὐκ ἐπαινῶν. 
So Lachm., Tisch., Treg. Reiche defends the tex. rec., which 


ABUSES IN THE CHURCH. ASSEMBLIES.—XI. 16-18. 288 


is retained in the Rev. Version: Westc. and Hort do not 
decide. Whichever reading we adopt, τοῦτο cannot well refer 
to what follows (as Chrys., Theophyl., Grot., Bengel, etc. : 
“but in the charge I have to give concerning the Lord’s 
Supper I cannot praise you”). For the words πρῶτον μέν 
introduce the former of two things, both of which would be 
included in the pron., which would then be plur. Neither can 
τοῦτο naturally refer to the injunction that the women should 
wear a veil in public worship. For the connection between 
this command and his not praising them because they came 
together for worse is not apparent. Τοῦτο refers to ver. 16. 
When he says that neither Apostles nor Churches allowed 
contentiousness, he gives a virtual command. Ver. 17 means 
that this command is really a withdrawal of part of the praise 
bestowed on them in ver. 2. There he praises them for 
bearing him in remembrance and holding fast the instructions 
common to all the Churches. Here, on the contrary, he bids 
them follow his example and the example of the Churches, 
adding that, in giving this injunction, he withdraws his praise 
as touching their conduct in the Church assemblies. 

mapayyéArow, not “I declare” (Auth. Vers.), but “I com- 
mand,” the only meaning in the New Test. 

ὅτι, “seeing that;” introducing the reason why he cannot 
do otherwise than withdraw part of his praise. There lurks 
a danger in contentiousness, which is that when they come 
together, they receive spiritual hurt instead of edification. 
Cf. xiv.4; 1 Thess..v.11; and, on the other side, 2 Cor. xi. 3; 
1 Tim. vi. 4. 

V.18. πρῶτον μέν. Olshausen, De Wette, Maier, etc., find 
the corresponding clause in ver. 20. But, first, not οὖν, but 
δ᾽ οὖν (as in Isoer., Puneg. 54), would be used in the sense of 
ἔπειτα δέ. Second, the repetition of συνερχομένων shows that 
in ver. 20 the Apostle is resuming the train of thought inter- 
rupted by ver.19. ‘Third, the subject of σχίσματα, mentioned 
in ver. 18, is left unfinished unless the dissensions that broke 
out at the Lord’s Supper are an instance of them. De Wette’s 
objection that the Apostle does not say that σχίσματα had 
occurred at the Eucharist is true only as to the word. Riibiger 
(Krit. Unters. p. 135), Osinnder, Meyer, Heinrici, find the δέ 
to correspond to this μέν in xii. 1. Practically it isso. But 


284 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


formally it is in τὰ δὲ λοιπά, ver. 34. The next chapter seems. 
to be an afterthought. Instead of postponing the discussion, 
as he had intended, till he comes to Corinth, he proceeds to 
consider one of the “ remaining things” in what he says of 
the spiritual gifts. 

ἀκούω, “I hear again and again ” (cf. Luke ix. 9). 

ἐκκλησίᾳ. NA-BCD omit τῇ (cf. xiv. 19). In no place in 
the New Test. need the word denote the place of meeting, 
not even in xiv. 35. Here also it means “in assembly,” cum 
solemniter convenitis (Erasm.), as in “ Didache” 4, ἐν ἐκκλη- 
σίᾳ ἐξομολογήσῃ. Clem. Alex. (Strom. vii. p. 846 Potter) 
observes that the word has the two signifieations. 

σχίσματα. Cf. i. 10. It is not improbable that the dis- 
sensions at the Lord’s Supper had some connection with the 
parties into which the Church was divided, but what connection 
we cannot tell. Maier and Rabiger (Krit. Unters. p. 196) 
conjecture that the rich belonged to the party of Apollos, the 
cultured Christians from among the heathen. But we may at 
least gather that some of the poorer members were forming 
themselves into a party in the Church against the party of 
the rich. 

V.19. The reason why the Apostle did not find it hard to 
believe part of what he had heard concerning’ their dissensions. 
Δεῖ means the necessity that arises from God’s purpose. The 
notion of a Divine purpose fulfilled through the strife’ and 
selfishness of men is as old as the history of Joseph and runs 
through all Greek poetry and Jewish prophecy. ‘The Apostle 
declares what one aspect of that purpose is. It is to bring 
to light the men whom God accepts (cf. Matt. xvii. 7; Luke 
xxiv. 26). Justin M. (Dial. 35) ascribes the words by mistake 
to Christ. 

αἱρέσεις. From the first the word implied the notion of 
theoretical differences, not mere contentious jealousies; for it 
meant a sect of philosophers or jurisconsults. Soin the New 
Test. it is used of the “ sect” of the Sadducees, etc.; and the 
sting of the appellation “sect of the Nazarenes ” lies in the 
claim of Christianity to be, not a theoretical school, but a 
universal religion founded on the only complete revelation. 
It is suggestive of a half-Christianized mind that Constantine 
should call the Church ‘the Catholic Heresy” (Kus., Hist. 


ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.—xI. 18-20. 285 


Eeeles. x. 5). In St. Paul’s Epistles the word occurs only 
here and in Gal. v. 20; and here it is usually explained to 
be synon. with σχίσματα, and there with διχοστασίαι. In 
2 Pet. ii. 1 the notion of erroneous doctrine is certain; it 
is proved by the words ψευδοδιδάσκαλοι, παρεισάξουσι, and 
ἀρνούμενοι. On the whole I cannot see sufficient reason to 
think that the word ever means anything else in the New 
Test. than a doctrinal difference. It may not be a sharply 
defined error. Sharpness of definition was perhaps the con- 
sequence of the rise of Gnosticism, and is itself an example of 
what the Apostle here says, that underneath the strifes of men 
there lies a Divine purpose, which thus finds its accomplishment. 
But a well marked opposition between truth and error in doc- 
trine appears in as early a writer as Ignatius, Ad Tall. 6, 
ἀλλοτρίας δὲ βοτάνης ἀπέχεσθαι ἥτις ἐστὶν αἵρεσις. The 
definite ecclesiastical meaning of the word includes more than 
this ; and it soon became customary to ascribe this definiteness 
in the use of the word to the writers of the New Test. For 
instance, Justin M. (wt sup.) considers the errors of Valen- 
tinian and Basilides to be the fulfilment of the Apostle’s 
prediction. Cf. Orig., Fragmin Hp. ad Tit. Aipeocs will, there- 
fore, denote the intellectual embodiment of the contentious 
spirit; and for that reason it is a more effective test of Christian 
rightness than any other form that evil principles can assume. 

οἱ δόκιμοι, that is, accepted of God. ΑἹ] that remains is 
that they should now be made manifest as such to the Church. 
The manifestation of an unchristian spirit in erroneous teaching 
ensures the manifestation of the Christian spirit in a keener 
insight into truth. Cf. Tert., De Preescr. 4, “ut fides habendo 
tentationem habeat etiam pr obabinaenn?? 

V. 20. συνερχομένων. . . αὐτό, “when, Freestone you 
come together to the same place”; ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, local, as in 
Clem. Rom., Ad Oor. 34, ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συναχθέντες, Barn., Hp. 
4, ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνερχόμενοι. The rendering “ for one object” 
(Evans) is not so suitable here. The important point is that, 
though they met as a Church, yet they took their meal 
separately even in the Church assembly (cf. ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, 
ver. 18). ‘ 

οὐκ... φαγεῖν. The clause has been understood in three 
ways: (1) “ You assemble not with any intention of eating 


286 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the Lord’s Supper” (Alford). But vv. 29, 30 imply that the 
Corinthians came together to eat the Supper, but ate it un- 
worthily. (2) “This is not an eating of the Lord’s Supper” 
(Estius, De Wette, Maier). But τοῦτο would then be ex- 
pressed, and this notion is unnecessarily weaker than the third 
rendering. (3) “It is not possible for you to eat the Lord’s 
Supper” (Meyer, Rev. Vers.). So Cranmer’s Bible: “the 
Lordes supper cannot bee eaten.” De Wette objects that the 
use of ἐστι in the sense of “it is possible” requires the accus. 
of the person to be expressed before the infin. But it is not 
expressed in Heb. ix. 5, and many instances of its omission 
occur in the classics. The meaning is that there is some moral 
defect in them which renders their eating of the Lord’s Supper 
not an eating of the Lord’s Supper, and makes it impossible 
that it should be. In the next-verse he begins to explain 
what that defect is. 

Κυριακὸν δεῖπνον. Comparing the words with τὸ ποτήριον 
Κυρίου (x. 21), we infer that the Eucharist is here meant, not 
the preliminary feast or Agapé, as the Roman Catholic exposi- 
tors say, e.g. Estius, Maldonatus on Matt. xxvi. 26. Chryso- 
stom, Theodoret, and Augustine (Hp. 54 (118), Ad Jan.) restrict 
the reference to the Eucharist. But unless the Agapé was 
celebrated at the same time or immediately before the Eucha- 
rist, such excesses as are here mentioned could not have oc- 
curred in connection with its celebration. That the Apostle 
refers to the Agapé and the Eucharist is, I think, certain, 
though the name Agapé does not occur before the closing 
years of the Apostolic age; e.g. in Jude 12 δὲ B have ἀγάπαις, 
and A B read ἀγάπαις in 2 Pet. 11. 18. In Ignat. Ad Smyrn. 8 
ἀγάπην ποιεῖν includes the celebration of the Eucharist; for 
it is joined to βαπτίζειν. Butin Justin Martyr’s account (Apol. 
I. 67) of the celebration of the Eucharist there is no mention — 
of the love-feast. The combination of the Eucharist and the 
love-feast may have been occasioned by our Lord’s having insti- 
tuted the former while eating the passover. It arose also from 
the earliest manner of celebrating the Eucharist as part of the 
family meal (cf. Acts ii. 46). Chrysostom ascribes the origin 
of the Agapz themselves to the attempt of the first Christians 
to establish community of goods, a trace of this remaining 
in the love-feast. When this custom of eating together and 


ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.—XI. 20. 237 


contributing to a common fund passed from Palestine to the 
Churches in Hellas, it found a congenial soil. It was the age 
of clubs and guilds or wniversitates im all parts of the Empire 
and among all classes of society. Their main features were a 
religious basis, a common fund, and a common meal. Through 
the assimilating power of Christianity the ἔρανοι of the Greeks 
became one of the most beautiful features of the primitive 
Church. The subsequent separation of the Agape arose more 
especially from two causes, the increasing degeneracy! of the 
love-feasts, and the growth of the sacerdotal doctrine of the 
sacraments. In the Apostolic Constitutions (11. 28) the Agapz 
are described as a meal given to aged women. ‘They were for- 
mally, though not finally, separated by a decree of the Council 
of Laodicea (1.0. 364), which forbade the holding of the 
Agape in the churches. Though the love-feast and the Lord’s 
Supper were not separated when the Apostle wrote, to state 
the distinction in idea between them would seem to be his 
purpose in this passage. ‘This is the special emphasis on the 
supper being the Lord’s. The rich are not the persons that 
invite, the poor are not their guests. It is a feast given by 
the Lord to all alike. The words tend to discountenance the 
union of the love-feast and the supper, and Augustine (cf. the 
Benedictine “ Life,” III. xi. 2) was justified in using the pas- 
sage in support of his recommendation “ne honesta quidem et 
sobria convivia licere in ecclesia celebrari.’ He correctly in- 
fers that the Corinthians erred in not distinguishing the love- 
feast from the sacramental communion of the body and blood 
of Christ. Sozomen (Hist. Hecles. VII. 19, cited by Heinrici) 
says they were confounded in the Church of Alexandria. 

This renders nugatory the question whether the celebration 
of the Eucharist immediately preceded or followed the love- 
feast. Chrysostom, Theodoret, etc., say the Eucharist preceded 
the Agapé, in accordance with the Greek custom of pouring a 
libation before sitting down to meat. But their testimony on 
this point is of less value because it was in their time universally 
held that the Eucharist must be taken fasting. EHstius and 
Cave (Primit. Christian. P. I, Ch. xi.) think the irregularity in 
the Corinthian Church consisted in their not tarrying one for 


1 Cf. Tert., De Jejun. 17, “appendices gule lascivia atque luxuria.” Itis hard 
to believe that Tertullian, though now a Montanist, does not speak the truth. 


288 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


another to partake of the love-feast together before celebrat- 
ing the Eucharist. 

V. 21. He proves the moral impossibility of their eating 
the Lord’s Supper from their unworthy behaviour at the love- 
feast. Not only did they confound the Eucharist and the 
Agapé, but they converted the love-feast into an occasion for 
the rich to indulge to excess and make an invidious distinction 
between themselves and their poorer brethren. 

τὸ ἴδιον δεῖπνον. It was essential to a love-feast, whether 
Branos or Agapé, that all the members should share it in com- 
mon, rich and poor contributing according to their means, and 
the larger contributions of the rich making up for the defi- 
ciency of the poor. The Christian love-feast was held in the 
place of assembly and partook of a religious no less than a 
social character. As the meal proceeded, it glided naturally, 
perhaps withont a formal break, into a celebration of the Hu- 
charist, in the same way in which our Lord’s last passover 
ended in the institution of a Christian sacrament. When 
therefore the rich took the meal before and apart from their 
poorer brethren, the very nature of a love-feast was destroyed 
and with it an essential feature of the Eucharist as well. 
What was intended to be a communion became an occasion 
of discord. 

προλαμβάνει, not “takes it at home before he comes to the 
love-feast,’’ which is inconsistent with ver. 22, but “ takes it 
with indecent haste before the poor come in with whom they 
were ashamed to eat.”” The opposite is ἀλλήλους ἐκδέχεσθαι, 
ver. 88. Chrys. excellently , τὸ κυριακὸν ἰδιωτικὸν ποιοῦσιν. 

ἐν τῷ φαγεῖν, “when he is taking his seat at the Lord’s 
table.” The aor. denotes the beginning of the act of eating. 
Cf. Goodwin, Greek Moods, p. 24. The object of the verb 
must be mentally supplied from the previous clause. 

ὃς μέν . . . ὃς δέ. Cf. note on vii. 7. 

πεινᾷ. The Attic form is wey. Aristotle is the first to use 
πεινᾷ, Which is the prevailing form afterwards. The meaning 
is, not that the rich man alleges hunger asan excuse for eating 
before the poor come in, but that the poor go home without 
tasting any food, while the rich have drunk to excess. There 
can be but little doubt that Chrys. is right in giving the word 
peOver its full meaning. “ He does not say ‘ drinks to satiety,’ 


ABUSES ‘IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.—xXI. 20-22. 239 


but ‘is drunk.” The Corinthian Christians were assimilat- 
ing the love-feast to the symposia of the heathen.! Cf. Plat., 
Sympos. p. 223. Long afterwards Ambrose was compelled 
to forbid the use of wine at festivals held in honour of the 
martyrs, because it led to revelry and drunkenness, 

V. 22. “Hold your social banquets at home. To do 
otherwise is to lower the Church to the level of a heathen 
club and to put to shame the poor.” 

μὴ yap ov. Ironical and denoting surprise. This is true of 
μὴ ov and of γάρ (against Meyer). Cf. Dem., Phil. I. p. 43, 
γένοιτο yap ἄν τι καινότερον ἢ Μακεδὼν ἀνήρ AOnvaious κατα- 
πολεμῶν; Of. Acts vii. 31; probably also Heb. iii. 16. 

Ths ἐκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, that is, not a heathen symposium, 
but an assembly of men consecrated to the service of the holy 
God. For a similar emphasis cf. xv. 9; Phil. 11.6. The 
Apostle was chief of sinners because he had persecuted the 
Church; yet this Church of the living God the Church in 
Corinth despised. The effect of contempt for the spiritual 
majesty of the Church is a readiness to put the poorer brethren 
to the blush because of their poverty; for in the Church, the 
presence-chamber of God, the distinction between rich and 
poor has no place. 

τοὺς μὴ ἔχοντας, not “ those who have no houses ” (Alford), 
but ‘those who have nothing,” ‘the poor.’ So Chrys. In 
class. Greek of ἔχοντες often means “the rich,” and of μὴ 
ἔχοντες, “the poor.” Cf. Plat., Leg. V. p. 735. In ver. 34 
it is assumed that the poor had houses. My, not ov, before 
ἔχοντες, because their poverty was the reason why they were 
put to shame. In putting to shame the indigent, who brought 
no contribution or a meagre one to the common meal, the 
wealthy Christians in Corinth did but imitate their heathen 
neighbours. Cf. Schol. ad Aristoph., Acharn. 570, ἔθος εἶχον 
τέλεσμά τι εἰς TO κοινὸν διδόναι, ὅπερ οἱ μὴ διδόντες Kal ἄτιμον 
ἐνομίζοντο καὶ μετὰ βίας ἀπητοῦντο. Some of the ἔρανοι had, 
however, for their special object to help the needy, who, in. 
their turn, when they might be in better circumstances, were 
expected to help others. It was this feature of the heathen 


1 According to one reading lian (Var. Hist, III. 15) says the Comer thane 
were ἀκρατέστερον τῷ οἴνῳ προσιόντες. 
Ὁ; 


290 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Eranos, in addition to the nature of the Christian Agapé, that 
made the conduct of the wealthy Christians of Corinth so 
deserving of reprobation. 

ἐπαινέσω is, like εἴπω, deliberative subjunctive. Buttmann 
(N.S. p. 46), and Grimm (Lez.), however, consider it to be fut. 
indic. for the more usual ἐπαινέσομαι. 

ἐν τούτῳ, connected by Neand., Meyer, De Wette, ete., 
correctly with οὐκ ἐπαινῶ. In other matters he has praised 
them. 

V. 23. The reason why he cannot praise them lies, not 
only in the contrast between their selfishness and the love of 
the Lord Jesus, though this is not to be lost sight of, but also 
in their complete misapprehension of the purpose of Christ in 
instituting the Eucharist. The Apostle proceeds to explain, 
on the authority of Christ, the nature of the Lord’s Supper as 
it is unfolded in the history of its institution. 

ἐγώ, “I personally.” Adtos ἐγώ would express the same 
thing, only more emphatically. Cf. 2 Cor. x. 1 with Gal. v. 2. 
Buttmann (N.S. p. 115) maintains that éyw is often ex- 
pressed in the New Test. without emphasis. There are some 
instances (though I think only one of the passages he cites, 
Matt. x. 16, is an instance), in which we may fairly doubt 
that emphasis was intended, e.g. Gal. vi. 17. But in our 
passage ἐγώ is emphatic (against De Wette). It renders the 
Apostle’s account of the institution more reliable that he had 
‘it personally from the Lord. 

παρέλαβον ἀπὸ tov Κυρίου. Beza, Winer (Gr. § XLVII.), 
Ellicott (on Gal. 1. 12), Neander, Meyer, Hofmann, etc., think 
the Apostle means that he received it from Christ, not directly, 
but through the Apostles or by tradition. Their strongest 
argument is the alleged difference in meaning between ἀπό 
and παρά, the former denoting the more remote, the latter the 
nearer, source. But this is not invariably the case. Cf. Thuc. — 
T. 125, ad’ ἁπάντων ἤκουσαν, on which Poppo observes, “ in- 
solentius.” So Matt. xi. 29, μάθετε ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, which imme- 
diately follows δεῦτε πρός pe, Col. 1. 7, ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ Ἑπαφρᾶ, 
and 1 John i. ὅ, ἣν ἀκηκόαμεν ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ. This is admitted 
by Buttmann (N.S. p.145). Chrys., Calvin, Hstius, Bengel, 
Osiander, Olshausen, Alford, Evans, etc., understand it to mean 
an immediate communication made by the risen Lord to the 


ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.—xXI. 22, 23. 291 


Apostle himself. It is the only interpretation of the word 
that adequately explains why the Apostle should mention the 
thing. If he can declare to his readers that the Lord’s Supper, 
instituted by Christ before He suffered, was again instituted 
by the risen Lord, and that its celebration in the Church from 
age to age was thus sanctioned by an immediate revelation of 
His will to the Apostle and, as Chrys. observes, proved to be 
no less significant and effective than at the first institution, 
the Apostle’s words have a worthy purpose in refereuce both 
to the Corinthians and to himself. Another institu®jn of the) 
Supper by the risen Christ occurred in Emmaus. 4 May we Ἢ 
not suppose it was one purpose of His appearance to the two 
disciples? That Christ should vouchsafe an immediate revela- 
tion of it to St. Paul is in keeping with, though distinct from, 
the revelation of the Gospel which he declares he received 
from Jesus Christ, not from men (cf. Gal. 1. 12). In this 
Apostle Christianity makes a new start as the Gospel of the 
risen and glorified Christ. But it is not a new Christianity ; 
and this identity of the Gospel taught by Jesus in the days 
of His flesh and again revealed after His resurrection to Paul 
is set forth in the identity of the sacraments. Ideas mark the 
progress, sacraments the fixedness of Christianity. Doctrines 
are more fully developed in the New Test. than in the Old, 
and more fully in the Epistles than in the Gospel narratives. 
But the same sacraments continue in one form or another 
through all dispensations, and help to anchor theological 
thought to its moorings. The Apostle does not hesitate to 
develope new truths; but he does not institute a new sacra- 
ment. Indeed ἀπό is more forcible in this connection than 
παρά. For it signifies that the Lord Jesus Christ was the \ 
original source of all revelation touching the nature of the | 
sacrament. Here as well as elsewhere the Apostle claims to 
have received revelations direct from the Lord. Cf. 1 Thess. 
iv. 15, ἐν λόγῳ Κυρίου, which Theod. correctly explains by ἐκ 
θείας ἀποκαλύψεως, and Eph. iii. 3. 

παραλαμβάνω is the precise word to denote the receiving 
a deposit or trust. Cf. Thue. II. 72, ἀποδώσομεν ὑμῖν ἃ ἂν 
παραλάβωμεν᾽" μέχρι δὲ τοῦδε ἕξομεν παρακαταθήκην. 

καί, “also,” identifies that which the Apostle received with 
what he delivered. In this matter of the Lord’s Supper they 


292 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS 


had forgotten his instructions (cf. note on ver. 2). On ἢ ef. 
note on vii. 20. 

παρεδίδετο. The close connection between the betrayal 
and the Lord’s Supper, noticed by the Evangelists, proves 
that the word here means, not the delivering of Christ by 
God, but the betrayal by Judas. The imperf. intimates that 
the betrayal was not the result of sudden impulse, but the 
fulfilment of well planned and now ripening counsels, known 
‘to Jesus when He was instituting the sacrament. The be- 
trayal was the crisis in His history. It determined that He 
must die. Hence the night in which this act was consum- 
‘mated was chosen by Christ for the institution of that sacra- 
ment which derives its meaning and virtue from His death. 
The form of the expression, not “when,” but “in the night 
in which,” intimates that Judas was present at the supper. 
The form παρεδίδετο is read in NABCD and adopted by 
Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort, ete. Chrys. and 
Theod. have παρεδίδοτο. Similarly in Acts iv. 85 NABD 
read διεδίδετο. Cf. Winer, Gr. § XIV. 1. 

The account given by the Apostle is almost identical with 
that given by Luke. This corroborates the statement of 
Trenzeeus (Adv. Her. III. 1), that Luke was a follower of 
Paul and consigned to writing the Gospel which the Apostle 
preached. Our passage is also the first written account of 
the institution of the Supper. | 

V. 24. εὐχαριστήσας. Cf. note on x. 16. From this the 
Supper came to be called the Eucharist as early as the time 
of Ignatius, the only one of the Apostolic Fathers that makes 
mention of the Lord’s Supper. Cf. Ad Smyrn. 7 and 8; 
Justin M., Apol. I. 66, ἡ τροφὴ αὕτη καλεῖται παρ᾽ ἡμῖν 
εὐχαριστία. 

The words λάβετε, φάγετε are omitted in NABCD. St. 
Luke and St. Mark omit φάγετε. The. copyists inserted the 
werd here from St. Matthew. 

The word κλώμενον is omitted in δὲ ἃ ΒΟ. (Ὁ has θρυ- 
πτόμενον). Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort omit, 
De Wette, Reiche, Hofmann retain it. Rightly; for, first, τὸ 
ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν is very harsh, perhaps unexampled ; second, break- 
ing the body was essential to the sacrifice; third, its omission 
by the copyists is accounted for on the supposition that they 


ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.—kXI. 23-25. 293 


suspected a contradiction between this passage and John 
xix. 36. Meyer is wrong in supposing the Apostle omitted 
κλώμενον because it could be supplied from éxdrace, for that 
breaking refers to the bread, this to the body. 

εἰς THY ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν. Cf. note on x. 16. The words of 
Christ contain two distinct but connected ideas. The one- 
implies His presence in the sacrament: “this is My body; 
this is My blood.” ‘The other implies His absence: “in 
remembrance of Me.” Both meet in the Apostle’s word, 
“eommunion,” which involves, first, that the communicant 
appropriates Christ, and, second, that the instrument of this 
appropriation is conscious, voluntary faith. . Appropriation 
of Christ necessitates His real presence; faith implies His 
equally real absence. The Apostle’s teaching is inconsistent | 
at once with the doctrine of transubstantiation and with 
Zwinglianism. 

ἐμήν. On the poss. pron. in the sense of an objective genit. 
ef, Jelf, Gr. ὃ 652. 8, Obs. 6; Winer, Gr. § XXII. 7. So in 
xv. 81; Rom. xi. 81. It occurs in class. Greek, e.g. Thue. I. 
77, τὸ ἡμετέρον δέος, Eur., 10 1276, ὁ οἶκτος ὁ σός. In the 
New Test. the usage is somewhat rare. It seems to convey 
some degree of emphasis, which is helped in this ver. by the 
position of μου. The words, thus emphatic, contribute to the 
object of the passage. They indicate the special character of 
the Lord’s Supper. Hitherto they had celebrated the paschal 
Supper, in remembrance of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt 
(cf. Exod. xiii. 9). Henceforth Christ takes the place of that 
deliverance. Instead of a temporal and national redemption a 
spiritual and, therefore, common salvation becomes the centre 
of men’s thoughts, of their memories and their hopes. The 
words cannot, without great violence, be explained of a com- 
memoration or an offering of Christ to God. 

V. 25. μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι, that is, “after the paschal 
meal.” St. Luke is the only one of the evangelists that re- 
cords this. But even he combines it with another account. 
For he mentions the cup twice. ‘The first time Christ takes 
the cup and gives thanks during the paschal meal, after which 
He says He will no more drink of the fruit of the vine until the 
kingdom of God is come (οἵ, Luke xxii. 17, 18). According 
to the other evangelists he uttered these words after taking 


294 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the cup of the Eucharist. The second time Christ takes the 
cup, according to St. Luke, after supper; and this cup, says 
St. Paul, was the cup of the Eucharist. The Apostle’s account 
is quite consistent with the accounts of St. Matthew and St. 
Mark. The difficulty is to harmonize it with the words of his 
own follower, St. Luke, who received, we may suppose, his 
information from him. However this may be, we must under- 
stand that the Eucharistic cup was drunk after the paschal 
meal. But why does the Apostle say this? Hofmann thinks 
it is to warn the Corinthians that after the Agapé wine may 
be required for the Eucharist. Bengel suggests, what is more 
to the purpose, that it is intended to distinguish the Hucharist 
from an ordinary meal. It is remarkable that the Apostle 
fixes the time at which Christ took the bread and the time at 
which He took the cup. Both data advance his main purpose, 
which is to mark the essential difference between the Lord’s 
Supper and every other feast. It was instituted on that 
critical night in which His death was irrevocably determined 
upon, because it was to be communion with Him in His death. 
Again, part of the Eucharist accompanied the paschal meal, 
part followed. ‘The new dispensation was grafted on the old. 
Mosaism expired in the birth-throes of Christianity. 

ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη. Since the expression in St. Luke and St. 
Paul, “this is the new covenant in My blood,” must mean the 
same thing as the expression, “this is My blood of the new 
covenant,” in St. Matthew and St. Mark, it follows that the 
substance of the wine does not undergo a change at consecra- 
tion; for the cup cannot be called a covenant except in a 
metaphorical sense. If so, the words “this My body” (ver. 
24) do not imply that the substance of the body is changed. 
We can now, therefore, determine the precise meaning of the 
word “15 in these two verses. On the one hand, it cannot 
denote a change of substance in the bread or the wine. On 
the other hand, because the Apostle teaches that the sacra- 
ment is a communion with the body and blood of Christ, the 
word “is”? must mean more than “ represents ;” though this 
notion is part of its meaning, inasmuch as the Apostle teaches 
also that the sacrament is acommemoration. Cf. Tert., Contra 
Marc. I. 14, *panem . . . quo corpus suum reprzsentat ;” 
and IV. 40, “acceptum pauem et distributum discipulis corpus 


ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.—XI. 25, 26. 295 


illum suuin fecit, hoe est, corpus meum dicendo, id est, figura 
corporis mei.” What more, then, than “represents”? can 
ἐστιν signify? Surely the answer is that it expresses com- 
munion. ‘I'he sacrament is a medium of communion with the 
body and blood of Christ, and a real means whereby faith 
appropriates the blessings which flow from the‘ glorified Christ 


/ in virtue of His death. 


διαθήκη undoubtedly means “covenant”? in the LXX., 
though συνθήκη would be the class. word, Even in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews the invariable meaning of διαθήκη is covenant. 
It is the only adequate meaning in our passage. The Gospel 
not only proclaims a Divine institution, arrangement or in- 
tention to bestow gifts on men, but also offers those gifts on 
conditions and declares that God, on His part also, has pledged 
Himself to bestow them on the fulfilment of those conditions. 
This mutual pledge is ratified in the sacrifice of Christ, in 
whom God and man meet. The sacrament involves faith on 
the part of the communicant. But the emphatic words are 
“new” and “in My blood.”’? The covenant is new because it 
no longer consists in the letter, but in the Spirit (2 Cor. iii. 6) ; 
no longer in a law of commandments contained in ordinances, 
but in the new man, which after God is created in righteous- 
ness and true holiness, 

ἐν, “resting upon,” “ratified through.” The same idea 
might have been expressed by ἐπί, as in Ps. 1. (xlix.) 5, τὴν 
διαθήκην αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ θυσίαις. The covenant rested on Christ’s 
blood, that is, the death of Christ was a sacrificial propitiation. 

ὁσάκις ἂν πίνητε, “as often as ye drink this cup of the 
Lord’s Supper ;”’ not “as often as ye take your ordinary meal.” 

V. 26. That these are not the words of Christ is certain. 
St. Luke has them not, and μου would have been used instead 
of Κυρίου. Tap does not here introduce a proof of the truth 
of Christ’s declaration that the bread and wine are His body 
and blood. The act of the Church would be no proof of their 
truth. Nor is γάρ͵ inferential (Meyer): “such, then, being 
the fact.” .It has here its explicative force. The Apostle 
applies the general statement of Christ to the case of the 
Corinthians. This explicative meaning of γάρ ,is proved by 
the repetition of Christ’s words, “as often as.” ‘The meaning 
seems to be that the words of Christ at the institution of the 


296 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Eucharist explain the distinctive nature of the Lord’s Supper, 
which is to declare His accomplished death as our propitiation. 
In this it differs from a Christian love-feast and from the 
Jewish passover. 

καταγγέλλετε. If γάρ is explicative, the verb is indic.: “ye 
do announce.” So Vulg., Bengel, De Wette, Maier, Meyer, 
etc. It is present of indefinite frequency. We announce the 
Lord’s death, not orally (Meyer), but in the act of eating the 
bread and drinking the cup. The word explains “in remem- 
brance of Me.” It is true καταγγέλλειν properly means “ to 
proclaim by word of mouth.”? But the Apostle intentionally 
uses the word to denote more than would be conveyed by 
“represent” or “signify.” In the Supper we preach the 
Lord’s death, and this silent ministry of the Eucharist excludes 
the pride or shame of social distinctions, as the oral ministry 
excludes excellency of speech or of wisdom. Cf. Cyprian, Hp. 
63 Ad Cvecil.: “ Qui [Christi sanguis] scripturarum omnium 
sacramento ac testimonio effusus proedicatur.” 

ἄχρις οὗ. The ay is omitted in NABCD. But it is an 
unreal refinement to detect a difference of meaning. Cf. note 
on iv. 5; xv. 25. 

ἔλθῃ. Theod., De Wette, Meyer think the Apostle’s pur- 
pose in mentioning the Lord’s second coming was to intimate 
that the celebration of the Lord’s Supper will cease when 
Christ Himself is present, as there will be no need of symbols 
when His glorified humanity has again appeared to His 
Church. But there does not appear to be a sufficient reason 


for referring to its cessation in this place. The Apostle men- » 


tions the two termini in the history of the Church, the Lord’s 
death and His second coming. These are the events that 
‘stamp upon the development ‘of Christian life and Church 
history its peculiar character. “All time is a festival,” says 
Chrysostom, “‘ because the Son of God delivered thee from 
death.” But the ages of history are to the Church much more 
than an after feast. They are a preparation also for the Lord’s 
coming. This the Corinthians had forgotten, and consequently 
turned the means of renovation and strengthening into a 
drunken meal. ‘The Apostle, therefore, reminds them of the 
same truth which Christ taught in His later parables of the 
ten virgins and the talents. 


a 


ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.—KXI. 26, 27. 297 


V. 27. He draws the practical inference that those who 
eat the Eucharistic bread and drink the cup have a duty to 
perform towards the body and blood of the Lord. To fail in 
this duty renders the communicant guilty, and exposes him to 
God’s judgments. The inference rests, not on καταγγέλλεται 
(Meyer), but on the entire statement concerning the nature of 
the Eucharist, as the communion of the Lord’s body and blood. 

τοῦτον is omitted in NA BCD. Hence τοῦ Κυρίου belongs 
to ἄρτον as well as to ποτήριον. 

ἄρτον. He still says “bread.” If the Apostle had taught 
transubstantiation, it would have made his argument ἈΣαρ 
stronger to say that they were eating the body. 

ἤ, “or? It cannot mean ‘and,’ which # never means, 
except in negative sentences; though καί is sometimes used 
for ἤ (e.g. Dem., De Cor. p. 270, χθὲς καὶ πρῴην). A reads 
καί, which has apparently crept in from ver. 26. The words 
prove neither the Protestant doctrine that participation im 
both kinds is necessary, nor the opposite doctrine of “ com- 
munio sub und specie”? (Estius, Cor. a Lap., Messmer; but 
not Maier). In fact the doctrine of concomitancy is meaning- 
less without the doctrine of transubstantiation or of consub- 
stantiation. The Apostle says 4 to intimate the consequence 
of unworthy participation of either of the two elements. A 
sudden revelation of Christ’s glory may bring a blessed 
change of heart even during the celebration. Yet he who 
unworthily partakes of either of the two elements incurs guilt 
in reference to both the body and the blood, inasmuch as he 
sins against Christ, from whom each part of the sacrament 
derives its efficacy. 

ἀναξίως. The Apostle has brought to light the special 
worthiness that belongs to the Lord’s Supper. He who con- 
founds it with the love-feast does not acknowledge its peculiar 
character. He eats and drinks unworthily. The meaning of 
ἀναξίως is explained by μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα, ver. 29, and it 
must be here restricted to this, though of course there may be 
other ways in which men eat and drink unworthily. But this 
passage is not a full and systematic statement of the nature 
of the Lord’s Supper. Like the parallel peas in chap. x., 
it was occasioned by a practical emergency 

ἔνοχος --ἐνεχόμενος, “held in,” hence “liable to? The 


\ 


298 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


original construction with évoyos is, therefore, the dat., 
whether we call it the instrumental or, as Jelf (Gr. § 605. 5), 
local dat.; first generally, as in Job xv. 5; then specially, 
as a law phrase, when the dat. expresses either the law 
or indictment (τοῖς νόμοις, τῇ γραφῇ) or the crime (e.g. τῇ 
προδοσίᾳ). or the punishment (e.g. τῷ θανατῷ). The next 
step was the use of the geuit. instead of the dat. This may 
have arisen either from the omission of τῇ γραφῆ, or from the 
assimilation of the construction to that of judicial verbs of 
prosecution. Hence the genit. with ἔνοχος expresses, not the 
law, but the crime (e.g. Auwotagiov). The third step was the 
use of the genit. to denote the punishment, as in Matt. xxvi. 
66. ‘The last (and latest) step was to use the genit. to denote 
the person against whom the crime is committed. This stage 
is not reached, 1 think, in class. Greek. But it is after the 
analogy of αἴτιος, which takes genit. of the person in the 
classics. Of. Isa. liv. 17, of ἔνοχοι cov, James ii. 10, πάντων 
ἔνοχος. These passages justify us in so explaining σώματος 
and αἵματος here, in preterence to considering them genit. of 
the crime : “ corporis et sanguinis violati”? (Jerome). The sin 
against the body and blood of the Lord consists in not re- 


cognising the peculiar nature of the Lord’s Supper, not (as _ 


Chrys., Theod., Gicum., Theophyl., Ambrosiast., Herveeus, 
the Formula Concorde, Olshausen, etc.) in crucifying to one- 
self the Son of God afresh. The reference is not at all to 
unbelievers or hypocrites, or apostates to Judaism (Lightfoot, 
Hor. Heb.). For ver. 32 impuies that those who were punished 
by the Lord for unworthy eating and drinking were believers, 
who were not condemned with the world. Lutherans argue 
from this ver. that unbelievers eat the body and drink the 
blood of Christ. Cf. Gerhard, Loci XXIV. xxii. 185. The 
words imply the reverse. Instead of proclaiming the Lord’s 
death, the unworthy partaker of the bread and wine is guilty 
of sinning against Him by not recognising the difference 
between the Eucharist and any social meal. He thus refuses 
to proclaim the Lord’s death, and declines communion. 

V. 28. Το shun this guilt let every man bring lis motives 
and the attitude of his soul to the test. 

δέ, adversative. ‘ Let him on the contrary,” ete. 

οκιμωζέτω, not “let him make himself worthy or approved” 


ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.—XI. 27-29. 299 


(Beza on Gal. vi. 4, Lightfoot, Hor. Heb., Riickert, Linden, 
Stud. u. Krit., 1862, p. 570), which would be expressed by 
ἑαυτὸν δόκιμον παραστησάτω, as in 2 Tim. 11. 15. But 
δοκιμάζειν means only (1) “to put to the test,” as in Gal. vi. 
4; 1 Tim. iii. 10; (2) “to approve,” as the result of putting 
to the test, as in Rom. xiv. 22. As the mcaning of self- 
approval would be here out of place, we must render the words 
“let every one test himself.” Cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 5, ἑαυτοὺς 
πειράζετε, ἑαυτοὺς δοκιμάζετε. Having censured the Cor- 
inthians for allowing the Eucharist to degenerate into a feast, 
which marked their differences, not their union, the Apostle 
intimates that the root of the mischief was their spiritual 
pride, only that they did not know it. If they would but 
bring to the test “the wretchedness of their disordered pas- 
sions,” their lack of love, of humility and spiritual insight, they 
would then see their need of communion with Christ, the one 
source of all grace. For this communion is not ecstatic, but 
moral and sanctifying ; so that a sense of unworthiness, sin- 
cere repentance, faith in Christ, promise of amendment, and 
thankfulness for God’s mercy, are necessary to secure the 
blessings which the Lord’s Supper is designed to bestow. 
The use made of the Apostle’s words by devotional writers 
of various schools is, therefore, exegetically legitimate. 

ἄνθρωπος = ἕκαστος. Cf. note on iv. 1. 

καὶ οὕτως, that is, “when he has examined himself.” This 
use of οὕτως must be distinguished from its inferential mean- 
ing, “this being so,” “que cum ita sint.” It occurs fre- 
quently in class. Greek, especially after participles, and is 
often followed by δή, but not often, as here, preceded by καί. 

ἐκ, “a portion of the bread.” The word implies, what is 
explicitly stated in ver. 33, that all should wait for one another 
and so take each his portion of the bread. Breaking the 
bread was part of the rite in the early Church. Distribution 
(διάδοσις) implied communion. 

V. 29. A reason for the exhortation to self-examination. 
Communion with Christ in the Lord’s Supper is the result of 
faith ; faith is impossible without thought and a right estimate 
of hci On the other hand, thoughtlessness produces un- 
belief and incurs God’s displeasure. 

ἀναξίως and tod Κυρίου are omitted in δὲ A BC, but in- 


300 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


serted in D. Most critics omit them; but Riickert hesi- 
tates. Without ἀναξίως the construction and meaning may 
be explained in one of four ways: (1) We may, with Meyer, 
and, in effect, Evans, supply ἀναξίως in thought. This is 
harsh; though it is likely ἀναξίως so crept in. (2) Osiander 
puts a comma after ἑαυτῷ, omitting it after πίνων and πίνει: 
“for he who eats and drinks judgment to himself eats and 
drinks without discerning the Lord’s body.” Nothing can 
well be more unnatural. (3) Riickert thus: “ for he who eats 
and drinks without discerning the Lord’s body eats and 
drinks judgment to himself.” The position of the participle 
is decisive against this. (4) Meyer and De Wette thus: 
“for he who eats and drinks, eats ‘and drinks judgment to 
himself, if he does not rightly estimate the body.” Canon 
Evans doubts that the hypothetical participle is a Hellenistic 
usage. But cf. xi.5; Gal. vi. 9; Heb. x. 26; xi. 32. This 
is the best interpretation. 

κρῖμα (or κρίμα, cf. Winer, Gr. ὃ VI.1 e), judgment,” “ ju- 
dicial sentence,” as in Mark xii. 40; Rom. ii. 2,8. Herveeus, 
Estius, Mosheim explain it of eternal perdition. The sub- 
sequent verses prove that temporal judgments are at least 
included. But from the absence of the article we may, I 
think, gather that the Apostle intentionally refrains from 
fixing more particularly what punishment. Some of the un- 
worthy recipients may have incurred such guilt as rendered 
them obnoxious to severer punishment than others. 

ἑαυτῷ, “against himself.”’? Cf. Matt. xxii. 381 ; Rom. xiii. 
2; Heb. vi. 6.’ 

μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα. Justin M. (Apol. I. 66), Augustine 
(Tract. in Johan. LXII.), Herveeus, Beza, Grotius, Estins, 
Hofmann explain the clause to mean “not distinguishing 
between the Lord’s body and common bread.” But as - 
“body ”? cannot mean “the symbols of the body,” the sin 
against which he warns the Corinthians cannot consist in 
not distinguishing the efficacy of the sacramental bread from 
ordinary food, but rather in an imperfect apprehension of the 
-sanctifying influence of fellowship with Christ. Moreover, 
διεκρίνομεν in ver. 31 must have the same meaning as διακρί- 
νων in ver. 29, that is “if we estimated ourselves aright.” 
The meaning is that a right estimate of ourselves is necessary 


ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMBLIES.—xI. 29-31. 301 


for a right estimate of the Lord’s body (cf. Matt. xvi. 3). This 
is the rendering of the Vulg., “‘nos dijudicans . . . quodsi 
nosmet ipsos dijudicaremus,” etc., which is much better than 
Beza’s “‘discernens . . . etenim si ipsi nos dijudicaremus.” 

τὸ σῶμα. He does not now say “the body and the blood,” 
because he is speaking, not of the symbols on earth, but of 
Christ’s glorified humanity in heaven. This accounts also for 
the otherwise harsh omission of tod Kupiov. The “body” is 
the Lord Himself in His glorified humanity. In the σῶμα τῆς 
δόξης αὐτοῦ the distinction of flesh and blood has: no place. 
The notion of Dean Jackson and Bengel, that the material 
blood which flowed from the Lord’s body on the cross, was 
gathered up and restored by the power of God, is, therefore, 
though reverently conceived, a mere fancy. 

V. 30. What is a hypothesis only in ver. 29 is actually the 
case at Corinth. Some among the Corinthians were guilty 
of dishonouring the glorified body of the Lord, and this was 
proved by the numerous sicknesses and deaths that occurred 
among them. If we ask how the Apostle is justified in con- 
necting the two things as cause and effect, it is not enough to 
answer, with Hofmann, that he observed the connection from 
the large number of Christians that had recently died at 
Corinth. The Apostle and prophet is here uttering an oracular 
decision, with certitude and authority. Several expositors 
(Estius, Osiander, etc.,) notice the parallel between the cir. 
cumstances that ushered in the Old and the New Dispensa- 
tions. And as Ananias and Sapphira fell dead at the feet of 
Peter because they had lied to the Holy Ghost, so also many 
Christians in Corinth were stricken with sickness and some 
with death because they had dishonoured the majesty of 
Christ’s glorified human nature. That the reference is not to 
spiritual feebleness is evident from his using the word κοιμῶν- 
tat, the Christian designation for death. Cf. uote on vu. 39. 
The pres., which occurs only here in the New Test., denotes 
the act of “falling asleep.” Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 13. Or it may 
mean frequency. Many died from time to time. 

V. 31. For γάρ read δέ with δὲ A B Ὁ, against C. 

διεκρίνομεν . . . ἐκρινόμεθα. This may be rendered either, 
“if we were to judge ourselves, we should not be judged” 
or with equal correctness (against Canon Evans), “if we had 


302 . THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


judged ourselves, we should not have been judged.” Cf, 
Goodwin, Moods, ὃ 49, 2. The context must in each’ case 
decide to what time the imperfect refers. But the 5é and the 
Ist pers., making the reference general,.are decisive in favour 
of the present time. “ It is true that God’s judgments are 
descending; but we, who have hitherto escaped, may shun 
them by judging and testing ourselves. If we examined and 
formed a right estimate of ourselves so as heartily to repent, 
we should be spared God’s temporal judgments, which are 
intended to make us sorrow after a godly sort.” Augustine 
used this verse as a motto to his “ Retractations.” 

V. 32. God’s temporal judgments are a father’s chastise- 
ments, inflicted to lead the erring child to repentance, that he 
may not be condemned with the unbelieving world by Christ 
at His coming. 

The words “ by the Lord,” though implied with “ chastised,” 
must properly be connected with “ judged,” for we shall then 
preserve the antithesis between it and “ judging ourselves,” 
ver. 31; and it is because the judgment has been sent by the 
Lord that it has the chastening effect of discipline. 

παιδευόμεθα, “ we are chastened,” that is, disciplined, cor- 
rected. Παιδεία is correction by act, νουθεσία by word. In 
class. Greek παιδεία is “ education.” But in Scripture it 
has acquired the further meaning of correction by a father. 
Cf. Prov. xxii. 15; Heb. xii. 5-11; 2 Macc. vi. 12. It differs 
also from κόλασις and τιμωρία. Of. Chrys., νουθεσίας μᾶλλόν 
ἐστιν ἢ καταδίκης TO γινόμενον, ἰατρείας ἢ τιμωρίας, διορθώ- 
σεως ἢ κολάσεως. ; 

κατακρίθωμεν, “ that we may not be judged unto condem- ᾿ 
nation.” Cf. Rom. v. 16, κρῖμα εἰς κατάκριμα. The Apostle 
means at the Lord’s second coming, ver. 26. Cf. Luke xxi. 
34; Matt. xxiv. 49-51. This makes it probable, against the 
view of expositors generally, that “the Lord,” by whom the 
Corinthians were now judged, is Christ. 

Vv. 33, 34. He closes the discussion concerning the Hu- 
charist with two practical exhortations. The one is that they 
should make it a common feast, the other is that, notwith- 
standing this, it should not be allowed to degenerate from 
a spiritual into a carnal feast. The common character of the 
Eucharist will be preserved by their waiting one for another; 


ABUSES IN THE CHURCH ASSEMPLIES.—xI. 31-34. 808 


its religious character will be secured by their satisfying their 
hunger at home. 

V. 33. ἐκδέχεσθε, probably not “ receive ye one another ” 
to the feast (Musheim, Olshausen, Hofmann, etc.). This is the 
more usual meaning of the word in class. Greek and LXX., 
only with the additional notion of receiving from another, e.g. 
ambassadors (Polyb. XXIV. iv. 11), whereas receiving a guest 
is δέχεσθαι (Luke xvi. 9) or ἀποδέχεσθαι (Xen., Mem. IV. 
1. 1). The meaning here is “ wait ye for one another.” The 
word is an intentionally formal antithesis to ver. 21. To wait 
for one another would render the occasion more solemn. 

V. 34. The omission of δέ (with 8 ABCD) makes these 
two closing exhortations more impressive. He now speaks to 
rich and poor. The poor must not use the Lord’s supper to 
satisfy hunger; the rich must not allow the poor to want food. 
Let them be fed from the provision made by the Church for 
the purpose, but let them be fed at home. 

ἐν οἴκῳ, “at home,” as xiv. 35. Cf. note on ver. 22. 

εἰς, expressing consequence. Cf. Rom. vil. 4, 6, where εἰς 
TO γενέσθαι ὑμᾶς ἑτέρῳ is explained by ὥστε δουλεύειν ἐπ κι 

τὰ δὲ λουπά. Of. note on ver. 18. 

ὡς ἂν ἔλθω. Cf. note on iv. 5; xi. 26. The use of ὡς ἂν 
with subjunctive is very rare in class. Greek. In the New 
Test. it occurs only here and Rom. xv. 24; Phil. ii. 23. The 
Apostle, it appears, purposed visiting Corinth. But after- 
wards he deemed it expedient to write another letter to the 
Corinthians, as they had not received his censure with entire 
friendliness. 

διατάξομαι. Cf. note on vii.17. The word refers to ex- 
ternal, practical arrangements, and conveys the notion of 
authority as well as of order. Cf. xvi. 1; Acts xviii. 2. 
Ignatius (Ad Trall. iii. 3 et al.) will not use the word in 
speaking of his own advice, as it implies apostolic authority. 


SIXTH DIVISION. 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS. 
(xii. 1-xiv. 40). 


A. Description and Vindication of the Spiritual Gifts. 
(xii. 1-31). 


V.1. Rabiger and others think the δέ of this ver. 
balances the μέν of xi. 18. The discussion that follows may 
well be considered a third sub-division of the Fifth Division 
of the Epistle, inasmuch as it has reference to the conduct of 
the Corinthians in the Church assemblies. But as the Apostle 
is answering a distinct question of the Church, he probably 
ranked the discussion as co-ordinate with his answers to the 
other questions. Jé is, therefore, transitional, with some 
slight notion of antithesis to τὰ Nord . . . διατάξομαι. 
(xi. 34): ‘Whatever subject I postpone I must not delay to 
explain the nature of spiritual gifts.” 

περὶ δὲ TOV πνευματίκων. Cf. vii. 1, 25; viii.1. From the 
form of the Apostle’s answer we gather that the question 
arose partly from the strangeness of the phenomena that had 
presented themselves in the Church, partly from a natural 
suspicion that they were but another manifestation of the 
demoniacal influences which the Corinthians must have often 
witnessed in connection with the religious rites of heathenism. 
~The Apostle seeks to show that unwonted manifestations of a 
supernatural presence in the Christian assemblies were to be 
expected. Some appear to have lost their moral balance in 
consequence of ecstatic possession. He thinks it necessary 
to estimate the relative worth of ecstasy and Christian love, 
tongues and serviceable prophecy. 

804 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—xXII. 1, 2. 805 


The word πνευματικά must not be understood to denote 
“spiritual things” in general (Kling), nor quite specifically 
for “the gift of tongues” (Baur, Heydenr., Stanley). Cf. 
note on xiv. 37. It means the Charismata, the nature of 
which generally is first declared, and the necessity of which in 
the Church is first proved. Grotius, Hofmann, Heinrici con- 
sider τῶν πνευματίκων to be masc., synon. with τῶν πνευματο- 
φόρων, asin xiv. 37. This is not so, simply because the spiritual 
gifts were, not the prerogative of a few, but a gift bestowed 
in various forms and degrees on all Christians. Cf. note on 
ἰδιώτης, xiv. 16. The universality of the gifts is one of the 
arguments which the Apostle uses to prove that no member ἡ 
of Christ’s body, the Church, should envy another member, 
inasmuch as every member has its own function assigned it 
in the body. The gifts are called πνευματικώ, not because of 
any connection with the human πνεῦμα, but because they are 
bestowed by the Spirit of God. Cf. note on ix. 11. 

ov θέλω. Cf. note on x. 1. The phrase is always accompa- 
nied by the endearing address, ἀδελφοί. 

V. 2. After ὅτι we must certainly insert ὅτε. SoNABCD, 
Vulg. (quoniam cum). So Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. 
But Lachm. hesitates, apparently because he thought B had 
not ὅτε. Reiche defends the tex. rec. If we omit ὅτε the 
construction is easy, and requires none of Hofmann’s ingenious 
manipulations. Inserting ὅτε, we may explain the construc- 
tion in one of the following ways: (1) Alford supposes the 
Apostle te have begun with οἴδατε ὅτι, and then to have 
passed into the construction of placing ὅτε after such verbs as 
μέμνημαι, οἶδα, ἀκούω, an ellipsis of tod χρόνου taking place. 
Is it certain that οἶδα can have this construction? Alford 
cites Hom., Il. xiv. 11, ἤδεα μὲν yap ὅτε πρόφρων Δαναοῖσιν 
ἄμυνεν. But the object of ἤδεα is not the temporal clause, but 
ἀπολέσθαι Ayaiovs. (2) Valckenaer and Meyer think there 
is a confusion of two constructions after οἶδα, viz. a ὅτε clause 
and a participle, ἀπαγόμενοι. ‘This occasionally happens. Cf. 
Thuc. IV. 37, γνοὺς. . . ὅτι, εἰ καὶ ὁπωσονοῦν μᾶλλον 
ἐνδώσουσι, διαφθαρησομένους αὐτούς, and Plat., Gorg. p. 481, 
αἰσθάνομαι . . . ὅτι, ὁπόσ᾽ ἂν φῇ σου τὰ παιδικὰ καὶ 
ὅπως ἂν φῇ ἔχειν, οὐ δυναμένου ἀντιλέγειν. It occurs also 
. with ὥστε, ὡς. Cf. Isocr., Paneg. § 64; Xen., Mem. IV. ii. 

x 


806 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


30. But the usage is too rare and exceptional to be of much 
weight in reference to a construction in the New Test., espe- 
cially as the participial predicate after οἶδα occurs but once in 
St. Paul’s Epistles (2 Cor. xii. 2). (8) Castalio, Bengel, Butt- 
mann (N.S. p. 328), Heinrici consider ὡς to be resumptive 
of ὅτι, the temporal clause ὅτε ἔθνη ἦτε intervening. It may 
be some objection to this that the intervening clause is too 
short to render the repetition of ὅτε probable. But this is 
apparently the construction adopted by Chrys. (οὗτοι of μάντεις 
πρὸς ἐκεῖνα ἤγοντο EAKomevot) and Basil (ὁ μὲν yap ὡς av ἤγηται 
ἀπαγόμενος ἄλογον λατρεύει λατρείαν). That the participle 
ἀπαγόμενος hangs is not a sufficient objection. It expresses 
what could not so emphatically be stated otherwise, that the 
heathen worshippers are “led by being led away like prisoners 
at the will of the demons.” 

οἴδατε. By referring to their former condition as being 
what they themselves acknowledged, he avoids the harshness 
of the reference, and also prepares them for a statement of the 
opposite truth, which they did not yet understand. Hence 
'γνωρίζω, ver. 3. 

ἔθνη, not “ nations” Pde (Baur), but “ Gentiles,” in 
the sense attached to the word among the Jews. Cf. Rom. 
iii. 29, where it is distinguished from ᾿Ιουδαῖοι; Gal. ii. 8, 
from ἡ περιτομή; Rom. xv. 10, from ὁ λαὸς αὐτοῦ, and Eph. 
Ἢ. 11. The peculiarity of the present passage is that the 
Gentiles are here distinguished from Christians, from ὁ ἐν τῷ 
«κρυπτῷ Ιουδαῖος (Rom. 11. 29). The Christian Church is, in 
‘the Apostle’s eyes, the true Israel of God. Cf. Gal. vi. 16; 
Heb. iv. 9. Sometimes the name is applied to the Gentile 
‘Christians. Cf. Gal. ii, 12, where of Ἰουδαῖοι are Jewish 
‘Christians, of ὄντες ἐκ περιτομῆς as distinguished from ἡ 
“περιτομή. 

εἴδωλα, that is, images and not realities. Cf. note on 
vill. 4. 

ἄφωνα. Cf. LXX., Hab. ii. 18, εἴδωλα κωφά. So Τρ. ad 
Diogn. 2, οὐ κωφὰ πάντα; In speaking of idols ἄφωνα is 
more correct than κωφώ. They are not mutes, but voiceless 
things, θεοὶ νεκροί (Didache 6). 

ἂν ἤγεσθε, the iterative imperfect with dv: “how ye were 
iled whenever the occasion happened.” Cf. Mark vi. 56. Few 


THE SPIRITJAL GIFTS.—xtIr. 2: 307 


instances occur in the New Test., but it is a frequent usage in 
class. Greek. Cf. Buttmann, N.S. p.186. Erasm., Valcken., 
Hofm., Heinrici consider the av to be the prefix of the verb 
and read ws ἀνήγεσθε, that is, “were led up as sacrifices are 
led up to the altar.” Of. Acts vii. 41. But is this metaphor 
a natural one? ‘The clause expresses the self-abandonment 
of the worshipper, as ἀπταγόμενοι denotes his going astray from 
the truth. 

ἀπαγόμενοι, “being led away,” that is, “inasmuch as ye 
were led away ;”’ causal participle, as in Mark vii. 19. πάγω 
may mean either “to lead from the truth,” or “to lead away 
at one’s own will.” Both notions would be to the Apostle’s 
purpose. But the former is the usual one when the Apostle 
speaks of the heathen. Cf. Tit. 11. 3; 2 Pet. ii. 18. So 
Lactantius vi. 8: “ Errant [pagani] velut in magno mari nec 
quo ferantur intelligunt.’” The word presents an instructive 
contrast to ἄγονται of Rom. viii. 14; Gal. v.18. By whom 
were they led? ‘The answer is given in 2 Tim. ii. 26; Eph. 
ii. 2. Cf. Athenag., Leg. pro Christ., καὶ of μὲν περὶ τὰ 
εἴδωλα αὐτοὺς ἕλκοντες οὗ δαίμονές εἰσιν, and Just. M., Apol. 
I. 5, μάστιγι δαιμόνων φαύλων ἐξελαυνόμενοι, which is seem- 
ingly a paraphrase of the Apostle’s ἀπαγόμενοι. 

This ver. is not merely a statement of their ignorance of the 
nature and use of the Charismata (Meyer, Alford, etc.). For, 
first, they must have known that these manifestations were 
the gift of the Spirit; the question put by the Corinthians 
probably contained the words περὶ τῶν πνευματίκων. Second, 
the contrasted notions in this and the following verses are 
clear. The Apostle starts with what the Corinthians know in 
order to show the vast difference between the influence of evil 
spirits on the heathen and that of the Holy Spirit on Christ- 
ians. There is a threefold contrast: (1) The objects to which 
they are severally led differ as idols differ from the Lord Jesus. 
(2) The heathen are led away captive at the will of evil spirits, 
whereas Christians are led rationally and morally by the Spirit 
of God. (3) The worshippers of voiceless idols are, for that 
very reason, mute themselves concerning God, while the saints 
unceasingly proclaim that Jesus is Lord. Beyond these three 
points of contrast we cannot legitimately go. We may not 


say with Chrys., Theod., Theophyl. and Neander that the 


308 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Apostle contrasts the ecstatic phrenzy of heathen possession 
‘with the conscious, intelligent nature of the Christian gifts ; 
for some of those gifts seem to have been ecstatic. At the 
same time the distinction so well drawn by Chrysostom is true 
in reference to Christianity as a whole. It is the supernatural 
made natural, the Divine becoming human, whereas in the 
heathen religions the gulf between the two was ever widening. 
Their union is possible in Christianity, because it is erected on 
the Divine-human person of Jesus Christ and on the indwell- 
ing of His Spirit in the Christian. 

V.3. The threefold difference now mentioned enables the 
Apostle to lay a broad foundation for his discussion of the 
spiritual gifts. His vindication of these extraordinary mani- 
festations of power rests on the two supernatural elements in” 
the Church. The one is the Divine purpose in the creation 
of the Church, which is the exaltation of Jesus as Lord. The 
other is the presence in the Church of a Divine worker, the 
Spirit of Christ, who will bring this purpose to pass. The 
exaltation of Jesus Christ is the external standard, and by | 
their relation to it all actions and thoughts, natural and super- 
natural, are to be estimated. The Spirit is the inward power 
that directs all to this end and creates supernatural energies, 
when natural fail, for the attainment of so high a purpose. 
The Apostle presents the mutual relation of purpose and 
worker in two aspects. On the one hand, the work of the 
Spirit is effectual. No man speaking by the Spirit of God can 
anathematise Jesus. All intellectual ideas, political combina- 
tions, force and sentiment, if they are derogatory to the honour 
and lordship of the historical and living Jesus, are thereby 
at once and absolutely excluded from the sphere of Christian 
influence and the development of the Christian society. They 
are not the material from which the spiritual gifts are 
fashioned. On the other hand, the Spirit’s work is necessary. 
No man can truly acknowledge the lordship of Jesus but by 
the Holy Spirit. At this point the two meanings of the word 
πνευματικός unite. The attainment of the highest form of 
the spiritual gifts, which consists in worship of the Lord 
Jesus, demands that the man should be spiritual in the sense 
_ of chap. ii. 
γνωρίζω, not “1 expound,” but “I make known.” These 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—XIl. 2, 3. 309 


facts they must accept on the Apostle’s authority. Cf. John 
xv. lo. 

ἐν, that is, ‘‘ entirely possessed by.” Cf. Luke iv. 1, where 
ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι is explained by Πνεύματος Ἁγίου πλήρης. 

For Ἰησοῦν and Κύριον Ἰησοῦν (so D, Chrys., followed by 
Reiche), we must read Ἰησοῦς and Κύριος Ιησοῦς (so NA BOC, 
Vulg. etc., followed by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and 
Hort). With the accusatives we should have to supply men- 
tally the infin. εἶναι which is a late Greek construction after 
εἰπεῖν, the classical construction being ὅτε. 

ἀνάθεμα. Lobeck cites Meeris: ἀνάθημα ἀττικῶς, ἀνάθεμα 
ἑλληνικῶς. Several words in -θημα have the form -θεμα in 
later Greek. Cf. Lobeck, Paralip. 11. p. 424; Phryn. p. 249. 
But Hesychius says they have different meanings: ἀνάθεμα 
ἐπικατάρατος, ἀκοινώνητος" ἀνάθημα, κόσμημα. The LXX. 
certainly appears to draw a distinction, using ἀνάθημα for the 
clean thing that is dedicated or sacrificed to the Lord. Cf. 
Judith xvi. 19, where the armour of Holophernes, having been 
so dedicated, is called ἀνάθημα; 2 Macc. ix. 16; Luke xxi. 5 
(ἀνάθημα is the correct reading). But ἀνάθεμα is the unclean 
thing which a man devotes to the Lord, but may not offer in 
sacrifice nor redeem, and must put to death (cf. Lev. xxvii. 
28, 29). The Apostle has only ἀνάθεμα, and always in the 
sense of “accursed.” The words ἀνάθεμα Ἰησοῦς may, there- 
fore, mean that the death which Jesus suffered proved Him to 
be under God’s curse and the object of God’s hatred, or they 
may be the imprecation of a curse upon Him (so Theophyl.). 
Cf. Acts xxvi. 11, ἠναγκάζον βλασφημεῖν. We know from 
Pliny’s letter (Zp. 97) that ‘to curse Christ” was enjoined 
as the final test by which to determine if a man was a heathen 
ora Christian. Alpe τοὺς ἀθέους, said the proconsul to Poly- 
carp, λοιδόρησον τὸν Χριστόν, to which the martyr replied, 
πῶς δύναμαι βλασφημῆσαι τὸν βασιλέα μου; Origen tells us 
that the Ophiites were not more sparing than Celsus in their 
accusations against Jesus and admitted none into their as- 
sembly unless he imprecated curses upon Him (Contra Cels. 
VI. 28). Cf Dial. ς. Tryph. 138, ἀδιαλείπτως δέ καταρᾶσθε 
αὐτῷ τε ἐκείνῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ. It is hardly necessary to 
observe that St. Paul never uses the word ἀνάθεμα in the 
ecclesiastical signification for excommunication, which crept 


310 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 
into the Church from the LXX., though the Fathers so explain 
it in some passages (cf. Fritzsche, Rom. ix. 3). The antithesis 
between ἀνάθεμα aud Κύριος does not necessitate our under- 
standing the latter as the Greek equivalent to Jehovah. But, 
as it is so used in the LXX., we may explain the antithesis 
here to be between imprecating the curse of Jehovah on one 
who is Himself Jehovah and acknowledging Him to be Jehovah 
whom others call accursed. In point of doctrine all that is 
required to distinguish a Christian is an acknowledgment of 
the lordship of Jesus of Nazareth. Cf. 1 John ii. 22; iv. 2, 
πον 1, 

Vv. 4-16. Having stated that the acknowledgment of 
Jesus as Lord is the one universal and decisive test of the 


spiritual gifts, the Apostle proceeds to the one essential - 


characteristic of the gifts, which is diversity in unity—diversity 
in their action, unity in their origin ;' diversity in relation to 
the Church, unity in relation to God; diversity making them 
useful, unity proving them to be Divine. 

V. 4. διαίρεσις may mean either “ distribution ” (so Vulg., 
Erasm.), like μερισμός in Heb. ii. 4, or “ distinction ” (so Beza, 
after Chrys., Theod.), like μερισμός in Heb. iv. 12. In favour 
of the former meaning is ver. 11; in favour of the latter 
the antithesis between διαιρέσεις and τὸ αὐτό or ὁ αὐτός. Cf, 
Rom. xii. 6, χαρίσματα διάφορα. The pivot of the whole para- 
graph is the notion of a difference in kind between one gift 
and another. But this again implies that one man has one 
gift and another has another. I have not much doubt that 


the Apostle uses the word in both meanings. It signifies “a 


distribution of gifts involving diversity of gifts.” Cf. Grimm, 
Lex.: “discrimen e distributione alis alia fact& ortum.” 


Grotius, Cor. a Lap., Maier, ete., think the words χαρίσματα, 


diaxoviat, and ἐνεργήματα denote three distinct things: 
χαρίσματα signifying the gifts themselves; διακονίαι, the 
Church offices in which the gifts are exercised, such as apostle- 
ship, as in ver. 28; ἐνεργήματα, the physical and spiritual 
effects of the gifts. The objection to this is that it separates 
the action of the Spirit from that of the Lord, and both from 
that of God, whereas all gifts are bestowed by Christ through 
the Spirit from God. The view of Chrys., 'heod., Zicum., Phot., 


Theophyl., and the most recent expositors, Meyer, De Wette, 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—XII. 3, 4. Sit 


Hofmann, etc., is much more probable and richer in thought. 
The three words denote the gifts regarded from three distinct 
points of view. As they are supernatural conditions of the 
human spirit, they are immediate graces (χαρίσματα) of 
the Spirit of God. As their exercise gives rise to various 
forms of service in the Church, they have respect to the Head 
of the Church, and in this relation to the Lord Jesus they 
are διακονίαι. ΑΒ they are effectual (ἐνεργήματα) to do this 
service, their source is in God. This is the threefold relation 
to the Church which God the Father, the Lord Christ and the 
Holy Spirit are elsewhere represented as maintaining. It is 
in accord with the intrinsic relations of the Divine Persons 
to one another. Cf. Eph. iv. 4, where the Christian calling is 
mentioned in connection with the Spirit, faith and baptism in 
connection with the Lord, and the universal, pervading efficacy 
of grace is ascribed to God the Father. Similarly we are told 
in 1 Pet.i. 2 that the foreknowledge of God the Father operates 
through the sanctification of the Spirit and results in obe- 
dience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. This 
threefold aspect of the spiritual ‘gifts is applicable also to the 
recipients. Effective work for God involves as its conditions 
that the worker should have a deep and abiding sense of his 
dependence on the Spirit of God, that he should toil on in 
self-sacrificing consecration to the service of Christ, and that 
he should manifest his possession of a Divine and conquering 
force. 

The Greek expositors, more at large Photius, regard this 
verse as one of the buttresses of Trinitarianism. The thought 
rests on that doctrine and implies it. But the passage does 
not expressly state it. The Lord is Christ the Mediator, 
the eternal Word, but the Word made Man, who, as Lord 
and Head of the Church, receives from the Father and sends 
the Spirit. The verse must not, therefore, be adduced, as 
is done by Meyer, in proof of a subordination within the 
Trinity. : 

χαρίσματα. Cf. note on i. 7. The word is here used in 
the special meaning of excellences or endowments bestowed 
on Christians by the sovereign grace of God. Cf. Rom. 
xii. 6, on which Theophylact. remarks, οὐ κατορθώματα, ἀλλὰ 
χαρίσματα. 


312 TIE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


V.5. διακονίαι. The plur. expresses the various kinds of 
service. The word denotes official service, but it expresses 
the nature of the work, not merely the office. It represents 
the Church as a realization, however imperfect, of the kmgdom 
of God, and for that reason it became an official name from 
the first. Cf. Actsi.17. 

V.6, ἐνεργήματα, not passive (Maier, Grimm, after Theod., 
ὡς ὑπὸ τῆς θείας ἐνεργούμενα δυνάμεως. Similarly Athanasius, 
Ep. ad Serap. 1. 80, παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς διὰ τοῦ λόγου χορη- 
γεῖται). It is active: “ effectual operations.” So Εὐρδβιη8. 
The notion that the gifts are wrought by God is contained in 
6 αὐτὸς Θεός, in the same way as it is contained, from another 
point of view, in τὸ αὐτὸ Πνεῦμα and ὁ αὐτὸς Κύριος. The 
Apostle ~xults in the thought that Christianity is the ἐνέργεια 
of Divine possibilities in human nature. Cf. Gal. 11, 8; Phil. 
iL. 

ὁ ἐνεργῶν . . . πᾶσι, that is, ‘ who produces effectually 
all spiritual gifts in all Christians.” This is an explicit state- 
ment ot the notion implied in ὁ αὐτὸς Θεός. 

V. 7. Ἑκάστῳ and πρὸς τὸ συμφέρον are the emphatic 
notions, the former expressing the diversity, the latter the 
| unity of the gifts of the one Spirit. Their diversity appears 

in their distribution to every Christian according to the 
measure of the gift of Christ; their unity, in the one purpose 
which the Spirit has when he confers divers gifts on individual 
men. LEdification is the practical test by which to decide on 
the admission of any manifestation of power into the Church 
and estimate the comparative value of the gifts. 

δίδοται, pres. of indefinite frequency. The aor. ἐδόθη occurs 

in Eph. iv. 7; for in the act of ascending on high Christ 
virtually gave all gifts. 

φανέρωσις, only here and 2 Cor. iv. 2 in the New Test. 

ποκάλυψις is the revelation of a truth by the Spirit of God 
to the Christian prophet ; davépwors is the declaration of that 
tevelation by the prophet to other men. 

τοῦ πνεύματος, that is, the Spirit of God. Chrys., Herveeus, 
Estius, Meyer, Hofmann consider it to be genit. of the ob- 
ject: “the manifestation of the fact that the man has the 
Spirit ” (cf. 2 Cor. iv. 2). But it is better to understand it 
as genit. of the subject. So Calvin, De Wette, Riickert, 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—xXII. 5-7. 313 


Heinrici, etc. This is in accordance with ver. 11, which 
ascribes the power of the: gifts to the Spirit. At the same 
time Neander is not justified in saying that the notion of mani- 
festing the presence of the Spirit is not Pauline (cf. xiv. 25). 
The Apostle must be speaking of the self-revelation of the 
Spirit, who is seen, like the sun, in His own light. 

πρὸς TO συμφέρον, that is, both the man’s own advantage 
and the profit of the Church. Because it is to his own 
advantage, the brother of slender gifts should not envy him _ 
who has received a larger measure ; because it is to the profit 
of others, the latter should not despise the former. Πρός, not 
here “according to” the profit (as in 2 Cor. v. 10, and per- 
haps Gal. ii. 14), but “with a view to.” This is proved by 
the corresponding words in xiv. 12. 

Vv. 8-11. Γάρ connects these verses closely with ver. al 
They prove the three statements which that ver. contains: 
that every Christian receives gifts; that all the gifts are be- 
stowed by the Spirit; that edification is the purpose of God 
in bestowing them. 

Attempts have been made to classify the gifts here men- 
tioned. The earliest is that of Tertullian (Contra Mure. V. 8), 
who divides them into four classes: (1) λόγος σοφίας and 
λόγος γνώσεως (sermo intelligentiz et consilii) ; (2) πίστις 
(spiritus religionis et timoris Dei) ; (3) ἐάματα and δυνάμεις 
(valentize spiritus); (4) προφητεία, διακρίσεις πνευμάτων, 
γένη γλωσσῶν, and ἑρμηνεία γχωσσῶν. ‘he most plausible 
classification is that of Bengel and Meyer, who think ἕτερος 
introduces the generic, ἄλλος the specific differences, thus :— 

I. Charismata which have reference to intellectual power, 

1. λόγος σοφίας, 

2. λόγος γνώσεως. 

II. Charismata which depend on special energy of faith, 

1. πέστις itself, 

2. πίστις in its operation in deeds, viz. 
a. ἰάματα, 
b. δυνάμεις. 

3. πίστις in its operation in words, viz. 
προφητεία. ; 

4, πίστις in its operation in criticism, viz. 
διακρίσεις πνευμάτων. 


314 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


III. Charismata which have reference to the γλῶσσαι, 
1. τὸ γλώσσαις λαλεῖν, 
2. ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν. 

The objection to this classification is in the second division 
of gifts. It seems arbitrary and unnatural that prophecy and 
criticism should be in the same class with healings and powers. 
Though the distinction between ἕτερος and ἄλλος, on which 
the classification depends, is generally speaking a correct one, 
itis not always observed in the New Test. Cf. xv. 39, 40. 
But if we omit δέ before προφητεία (as in BD; so Lachm., 
Treg.; Westc. and Hort are doubtful) and δέ before διακρίσεις 


(asin 8 BD; so Lachm., Treg.; Westc. and Hort doubtful),- 


we may perhaps recognise, not three, but five main divisions, 
thus :— 
I. ᾧ μέν: 
1. λόγος σοφίας, 
2. λόγος γνώσεως. 
II. ἑτέρῳ: 


} Intellectual power. 


1. πίστις, 
2. ἰάματα, ¢ Miraculous power. 
3. δυνάμεις. 


TIT. ἄλλῳ : 

προφητεία. Teaching power. 
IV. ἄλλῳ: 

διακρίσεις πνευμάτων. Critical power. 
Υ. ἑτέρῳ: 


1. γένη γλωσσῶν, Ὶ 
2. ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν. J 
While admitting a logical classification of this sort, we can- 
not fail to recognise a natural progress also in the series. The 
Apostle begins with the highest of all the Charismata, λόγος 
σοφίας, the power of the spiritual man to understand the Divine 
philosophy of the revelation of God in Christ. This suggests 
to his mind the gift of knowledge; and this its opposite, 
the gift of faith; and this the miraculous results produced by 
faith; and this the inspiration of doctrine and of judgment, 
of tongues and their interpretation. He proceeds from the 
worthiest to the least worthy. 
V.8. Σοφία and γνῶσις are clearly related, but to be 
distinguished. Augustine (De Trin. XIV. and XV.) makes 


Ecstatic powers. 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—xII. 8. 815 


sapientia consist in knowledge of Divine and eternal things, 
scientia in knowledge of things human and temporal. In 
Confess, XIII, 18 he compares the latter to the light of moon* 
and stars, the former to the light of the sun. Similarly 
Estius, Cor. a Lap., Bengel. The reverse is the view of most 
commentators, that σοφία refers to practice, γνῶσις to theory. 
Chrys., Theod., Gicum., Theophyl. think σοφία means power 
to teach, γνῶσις power to know. This is refuted by the word 
λόγος. Outside this Epistle σοφία and γνῶσις are used 
generically and interchangeably for theoretical and for practical 
knowledge. But their use in this Epistle seems to show 
that λόγος σοφίας denotes the power of expounding spiritual 
truths, which it is the gift of the spiritual man, the τέλειος, 
both to understand and to speak. Its object is revealed truth; 
its power is the illumination of the Spirit; its method a , 
spiritual synthesis; and its results are communicated to others 
in words taught by the Holy Ghost. Cf. 1. 6-13; Eph. i. 8, 
17; Col. ii. 8. The objects of γνῶσις are the same; for 
instance, it is a knowledge of God (2 Cor. x. 5), of the glory 
of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. iv. 6), of Christ 
Jesus (Phil. iii. 8); and in this part of his interpretation 
Augustine seems to have gone astray. But, whereas σοφία 
was the prerogative of the mature Christian, even the Cor- 
inthians had had γνῶσις in no inconsiderable measure (cf. 
i, 5). While the wisdom (σοφία) of the Gospel was spoken 
only to the τέλειοι, the Apostle thanks God for making known 
the savour of His knowledge (γνῶσις) by him in every place, 
wherever a door was opened unto him of the Lord (cf. 2 Cor. 
ii, 14; iv. 6; x. 5). Hence γνῶσις is the lower stage of 
Christian knowledge, σοφία the higher (cf. note on viii. 1). 
He who has σοφία knows the things of God more esoterically ; 
he who has γνῶσις knows them as opinions, intellectual 
beliefs, matters learned, premises and conclusions. To Christ- 
lan σοφία corresponds in the natural sphere ἐπιστημή, which 
indeed Plato calls copia (Rep. p. 443). The παρέκβασις of 
σοφία is mysticism, that of γνῶσις rationalism. The Apostle 
speaks of the word of wisdom or of knowledge, because he is 
now discussing all gifts according to their usefulness to the 
Church (cf. ver. 11). 

Oud... ata... ἐν. All the @harismata are through 


316 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the Spirit, according to the Spirit, and in the Spirit ; that is 
to say, God bestows them through the agency of the Spirit, in 
proportion to the measure in which the Spirit itself has been 
given, and that by the indwelling and inworking of the Spirit 
in the believer. The only doubtful word is κατά, which may 
mean “according to the will of,’ as in Rom. vill. 27, or “ac- 
cording to the measure of,” which is the more probable mean- 
ing, inasmuch as the Apostle ascribes the Charismata to God as 
giver, the Spirit being the dispenser and effectuating power. 

V.9. πίστις always involves the notion of a power to 
‘realize the spiritual. Now this power is a necessary condition 
of prophesying (Heb. xi. 8) and of doing miracles (Matt. xxi. 
21; 1Cor. xiii. 2). In fact it is the ground of all Charismata, 
which abound in proportion to the strength of faith—xata τὴν 
ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως. But when faith acts in the doing of 
miracles, the result is an external fact, such as healing the 
sick. When it acts in other directions, it creates subjective 
conditions or faculties in the believer, such as wisdom and the 
power of prophesying, which overshadow the underlying faith 
and assume the character and designation of distinct Charis- 
inata. The faith is lost sight of in the wisdom, but never in 
the gift of healing. Hence faith is to be here understood in a 
more extensive sense than as a mere gift of healing, which is 
afterwards mentioned, and than a mere power of exorcising 
evil spirits. That the power of seeing the invisible should be 
placed among Charismata is in perfect accord with the delinea- 
tion of faith in Heb. xi. 

χαρίσματα ἰαμάτων. The plur. ἐαμάτα means various 
kinds of healing; χαρίσματα is plar. because different powers 
are required to heal different kinds of sickness, Similarly 
Ireneus (V. 8) speaks of προφητικὰ χαρίσματα. Cf. Hus., 
H.E. V.7. But why χάρισμα at all? ‘lo distinguish mira- 
culous acts of healing from those of the skilled physician. 
Justin M. (Apol. II. 6) says the gift existed in his time—cut 
ἔτει νῦν ἰῶνται. For ἴαμα in the sense of ἴασις cf. ἐνέργημα 
for ἐνέργεια in ver. 10. 

ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ Πνεύματι. So. But A B have ἑνί for αὐτῷ. 
C deficit. The probable reading is ἑνί (so ‘Treg., Westc. and 
Hort, etc). It brings into prominence the oneness that 
underlies the diversity of gifts. 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—xtt. 8-10. 317 


V.10. ἐνεργήματα δυνάμεων. In Acts vi. 8 δύναμις means 
the subjective power of doing miracles; in Acts viii. 18 it 
denotes the miracles themselves. The plur. decides in favour 
of the latter meaning here, especially as ἰαμάτων and mvev- 
μάτων are also objective genitives: “the operations which 
result in powers.” Cf. ἐνεργῶν δυνάμεις, Gal. π|..ὅ. Heal- 
ings might have been included in δυνάμεις, as in Luke v. 17; 
Acts xix. 11. But they have an independent place owing to 
the conspicuous part assigned them in the work of Jesus and 
His apostles. Chrys. and Heinrici incorrectly limit δυνάμεις 
to the power to do great and striking miracles, especially by 
way of punishing, such as delivering to Satan (v. 5), ete. 

προφητεία. Among the Greeks the προφήτης was the in- 
Io, for instance, was prophetess of Apollo. The notion of 
predicting is not in the προ-, but comes to attach itself to the 
word because it is concerning the future that men consult 
the gods. Cf. Paley’s note on Hur., Jo 413; Plato, Tim. 72. 
Among the Hebrews there was no μάντις. The seer and the 
prophet were one; inspiration and interpretation met. So 
also the prophets of the Apostolic age are under the immediate | 
influence of the Spirit and teach the Church. Sometimes they 
spoke in tongues and others interpreted (cf. xiv. 29). But 
their immediate inspiration distinguishes them from the διδάσ- 
καλοι. The source of prophecy is revelation (cf. xiv. 6). But 
sometimes tations are given which the prophet is not 
permitted to divulge. Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 1, 4. 

διακρίσεις πνευμάτων. Cf. 1 Thess. v. 21, where “ prove 
all things” immediately follows “ despise not prophesyings,”’ 
as a consequence and a contrast. But διακρίνω means more 
than δοκεμάζω. It includes, not only a comparative estimate 
of the value of spiritual utterances, but also a separation of 
mutually destructive powers, the demoniacal and the Divine. 
In 2 Thess. il. 2 the Apostle acknowledges the presence in 
the world of a false πνεῦμα, whose λόγος consists in impre- 
cating a curse on Jesus, and this utterance the Apostle 
ascribes to the influence of demons. Cf. 1 John iy. 1, 2; 
1 Tim. iv. 1. The power of discerning between the true and 
the false spirit is here said to be a gift of God. With this we 
may compare or contrast the doctrine of the Reformers, that 





318 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the inspiration of the Bible is known by a direct, inward revela- 
tion, and the reply of Edward Irving to his friend Campbell’s 
enquiries, “that the answer of the spirit in the hearer is,” 
together with confidence in God, “the ground of belief in 
any word spoken by any man or any spirit.” (Life, by Mrs. 
Oliphant, Vol. II. p. 331). But there is some difficulty here. 
The Apostle has already in ver. 3 declared what he considered 
to be a decisive test of all utterances; and the same test is 
given in 1 John iv. 2,3. What need, then, of a special gift 
to discern the spirits? The answer is that the gift consists 
in a faculty to apply the test. This is also the correction of 
the Reformers’ doctrine of the believer’s inspiration to re- 
cognise the word of God. “Every spirit that confesseth that 
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God” (1 John iv. 3). 
But then, “every one that loveth knoweth God”? (Ib. ver. 7). 
The power to discern the spirits is, therefore, in a special 
direction the power to love. Cf. note on ver. 4. However 
that may be, the Apostle nowhere speaks of an interpretation 
of prophecy, as he speaks of an interpretation of tongues, but 
of a discerning of prophecy, true or false. 

γένη γχωσσῶν. In three sets of passages in the New Test. 
the gift of tongues is mentioned: (1) Mark xvi. 17, if the 
passage is genuine, where cawai may mean either “not 
previously possessed by the disciples” or ‘‘ having a new 
power.” (2) Acts ii., where λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις (ver. 
4) is explained by τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτᾳ λαλούντων αὐτῶν (ver. 6) 
and by λαλούντων αὐτῶν ταῖς ἡμετέραις γλώσσαις (ver. 11); 
that is, the writer describes the Apostles as speaking in the 
native languages of the foreign Jews who had come to the 
feast. That in recording what occurred in the house of Cor- 
nelius (Acts x. 46) and at Ephesus (Acts xix. 6) he refers to 


the same kind of thing as the miracle of Pentecost, is placed | 


beyond a doubt, as to one part of the statement, by the 
words ὥσπερ καὶ ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς ἐν ἀρχῇ in xi. 15. But, though 
the Spirit fell on those who were present on the three occasions 
and they spoke with tongues, it is not said that this meant 
speaking in foreign languages, except on the day of Pentecost. 
(3) The various references made by the Apostle to the gift 
of tongues in chapters xii., xiii, and xiv. of this Epistle. If 


we had only the narrative in Acts no one would have suppesed 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—x1l. 10. 919 


the gift of tongues meant anything else than the power of 
speaking in languages colloquial knowledge of which had not 
in the ordinary way been acquired by the Apostles. If, on 
the other hand, we possessed only the references to it in this 
Epistle, it is hard to believe anybody would have suspected 
that the gift of tongues meant this, though it would be difficult 
to say what it did mean. 

Trenzeus says the gift survived in his day (Adv. Her. V. 
vi. 1). But no inference can be fairly drawn as to the nature 
of it from his words, παντοδαπαῖς λαλούντων διὰ τοῦ πνεύ- 
ματος γλώσσαις. The first to offer an explanation of it is 
Tertullian (Contra Mare. V. 8): ‘‘ Edat [Marcio] aliquem 
psalmum, aliquam visionem, aliquam orationem, dumtaxat 
spiritualem, in ecstasi, id est amentid, si qua linguz inter- 
pretatio accessit.” He wrote this when he had become a 
Montanist. But his explanation is noteworthy because it 
disappears, perhaps in consequence of its supposed Mon- 
tanistic tendency, from the exegesis of the early Church, to 
be resuscitated towards the close of the last and during the 
present century by Bardili, Eichhorn, Ernesti, Herder, Bleek, 
Bunsen, De Wette, Meyer, etc., with important differences, 
however, among themselves. The universal interpretation of 
the older expositors, with the exception of Tertullian, appears 
to have been that the gift of tongues consisted in the power 
to speak foreign languages, without learning them in the 
ordinary way. This view first appears in Origen (Hp. ad Rom. 
I. 13). Chrys. and Augustine (De Baptismo III. 16) adopt it, 
and say the gift was no longer in existence in their times. 

_ Putting aside for the present the narrative in the Book of 
Acts, are the Apostle’s words in our Epistle consistent with 
the theory that “tongues”? meant foreign languages? First, 
the notion of preaching the Gospel to the heathen would, in 
that case, be an essential feature in the purpose of the gift 
of tongues. Apart from this practical use, the power to speak 
-in a language not previously learned is not different from 
ecstatic utterance. But it is evident that the Corinthians did 
not use their gift of tongues to evangelize the heathen world. 
They spoke with tongues in their Church assemblies, and not 
once does the Apostle urge them to apply the power to the 
purpose for which it would be so eminently serviceable. From 


320 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


xiv. 18 we infer that the Apostle exercised the gift in private 
even. Of what use would it be to speak foreign languages in 
the privacy of his devotions? Nay it is clear that the Apostle 
had formed a comparatively low estimate of the value to be 
attached to the gift of tongues. It is the least of the Charis- 
mata. To boast of it is childish (xii. 28; xiv. 20). Though 
it is a “sign” to the unbelievers, it is powerless apart from 
~ prophecy to convince them of God’s presence in the Church 
(xiv. 21-25). Can we conceive of St. Paul, who made him- 
self all things to all men that he might save some, depreciating 
and refraining from urging his readers to covet earnestly a 
gift so eminently fitted to spread the knowledge of Christ 
over the face of the earth? Second, it was a conspicuous 
feature of the gift that the tongues were unintelligible. Could 
the Apostle say of any man that speaks in a foreign language 
that he speaks not to men, but to God? Cf. xiv. 2. In xiv. 
7-10 he compares those who speak with tongues to musical 
instruments that give out jarring and discordant sounds, while 
prophecy is said to resemble the distinction of sounds that 
express intelligible musical ideas. Would he have said of a 
man that speaks the wonderful works of God in a foreign 
language that he does it with the spirit indeed, but that his 
understanding is unfruitful, or that he cannot interpret in 
his own language what he utters in another? Cf. xiv. 14, 28. 
For these reasons it is impossible to admit that the gift of 
tongues, in Corinth at least, meant the power of speaking in a 
language not before acquired. 

Ernesti and Herder suggested that by the tongues we are 
to understand unusual, antiquated, figurative and poetical 
expressions. This view is ably advocated by Bleek (Stud. u. 
Krit., 1829, Heft 1) and Baur (Ib., 1838, p. 618). Lightfoot 
(Harm. of the Gospel, on Acts ii.) had proposed a theory 
which approximates to this, that the gift consisted in the power 
of speaking the true Hebrew of the Old Testament. It is 
probably a relic of such a custom that occurs in a prayer 
ascribed to Gregory Nazianzen for exorcising the demons: 
ἐξορκίζω ὑμᾶς πάντα τὰ ἀκάθαρτα πνεύματα κατὰ τοῦ Ἑλοϊ 
Adovai σαβαώθ. Bleek supplies abundant evidence of the use 
of the word γλῶσσα in the sense of ἰδιότητες διαλέκτων from 
Dion. Hal., Sext. Empir. and Plutarch. But these examples 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—xXII. 10. 3821 


simply prove that the word was used as a technical term in 
grammar. We have no intimation in the Apostle’s words that 
καινὰ ὀνόματα were spoken in the Church. The religious use 
of γλώσσα to designate the ecstatic response of an oracle is 
more to the purpose; but it disconnects entirely the gift of 
tongues of which our Epistle speaks from the miracle of 
Pentecost. : 

Hichhorn, Meyer and others suggest that by γλῶσσα the 
Apostle meant the bodily member which we call the tongue. 
The Spirit is supposed to have taken possession of the person’s 
faculty of physical utterance, so that unconsciously to himself 
he uttered inarticulate cries. Bunsen (Hippol., Vol. I. p. 11, 
Eng. Trans.) calls the λαλεῖν γλώσσαις “a convulsive utter- 
ance, a nervous affection.” Cf. Philo, Quis Rer. Div. Her., 
p- 511, Vol. 1. Mang., καταχρῆται δὲ ἕτερος αὐτοῦ τοῖς 
φωνητηρίοις ὀργάνοις, στόματι καὶ γλώττῃ πρὸς μήνυσιν ὧν ἂν 
θέλῃ. But, if so, would the Apostle have used the plur. in 
speaking of an individnal, as in xiv. 6? (The reading in xiv. 
18 is doubtful). And what meaning can we attach to γένη 
γλωσσῶν, or to ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν ? 

There was undoubtedly an element of ecstasy in the gift οὖ. 
tongues (cf. xiv. 2, 14,25). So far the narrative in Acts is 
in accord with the Apostle’s words (cf. Acts ii. 18). In this 
respect we are justified in drawing a comparison between this 
phenomenon of the Apostolic age and the ecstatic utterances 
of the Montanists in the second century (cf. Tert., De Anima, 
9) or of the persecuted Protestants of Cevennes at the close 
of the seventeenth and beginuing of the eighteenth centuries 
(cf. Felice, Histoire des Protestants de France, IV. and V.), 
the ‘extraordinary views of divine things and the religious 
affections, attended with very great effects on the body,” 
described by Jonathan Edwards (Thoughts on the Revival, P. I. 
Sect. V.) as accompanying the revival at Northampton about 
the year 1735, the physical effects that attended the preaching 
of Wesley and Whitfield (cf. their Journals, passim), and the 
inspiration of Irving’s followers in the years 1832-3 (cf. the 
Life by Mrs. Oliphant: R. Baxter’s Narrative). The value of 
the last mentioned case is lessened as an illustration of the 
gift of tongues by the conscious attempt which the Irvingite 
prophets undoubtedly made to repeat the phenomena of the 

Υ 


422 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


early Church. But in all these instances we recognise @ 
sudden awakening of the man’s spiritual nature, and intense 
emotions of overwhelming fear and rapturous joys. These 
are precisely the effects which we should expect the wondrous 
declarations of the Apostles concerning the death and resur- 
rection of Jesus Christ to produce on the hearers. If such 
startling and stupendous truths had been met with half- 
hearted assent, without fear and trembling, without ecstasy 
of joy, that sometimes overmastered men’s natural powers, 
such callous reception would have been a weighty argument 
against our believing them to have been true. 

Again, we have a few scattered hints as to the nature of 
the manifestations in which these ecstatic emotions expressed 
themselves. There were “divers kinds of tongues.”? This 
caunot mean the several families of languages (Hofmann). 
But it may include the power of speaking in foreign languages 
as one kind of tongues. If so, it prepares us to admit a dif- 
ference between the manifestations of the Spirit at Pentecost 
and subsequently in Corinth, The word παντοδαπαί in 
Trenzeus may signify that the expression of Christian ecstasy 
‘differed in different persons. Then we are told that the Spint 
sought to express itself in prayers to God; but those prayers 
were often “ groanings which cannot be uttered,’ unintellig- 
ible to men, but understood by Him who “ knoweth the mind 
of the Spirit.” They are inarticulate cries; but they are not 
unmeauing. The man speaks mysteries; but no one under- 
‘stands (xiv. 2). Hence he who speaks in tongues, though he 
does not edify the Church, yet edifies himself. For the edifica- 
tion of others articulate speech and rational is requisite; but a 


man’s own devotion may find utterance in, yea may be deepened | 


-and purified by, sobs and tears (xiv. 4). This is so even when 
lhe cannot interpret to others his own unuttered prayers (xiv. 
13). Moreover, not only prayer but praise also was one form 
of the expression of the gift of tongues; a chant without 
words (xiv. 15, 16). Lastly, various forms of expression 
tended to combine or even to be confused, so that disorder 
arose in the Church, which must not be ascribed to Him who 
bestowed the gift (xiv. 33). 

Finally, it is a natural question why the expression of 
ecstatic emotions is designated “speaking with tongues?” 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—xuI. 10, 323 


The answer, as we have seen, is not that γλῶσσα means a 
language, nor that it means antiquated or provincial phrases, 
nor, again, that it means the tongue. Should we err in find- 
ing the reason for the name in th descent of the Spirit at 
Pentecost in the shape of tongues as of fire? It was sym- 
bolical of the work of the Church in the world. Hitherto 
Christianity was but a sect of the Jews. The tongues that sat 
on the Apostles taught them in symbol the strange truth that 
the Gospel was a message from God to all the race of man. | 
The result of the Spirit’s powerful inworking often appeared | 
as a kind of ecstasy, and retained the name which had been | 
given to the miracle of Pentecost, even when the nature of | 
the phenomenon had greatly changed. We may further admit 
that the change was brought about gradually and, when 
accomplished, proved to be the degeneracy of a supreme gift 
into what was become a discredit. The quarter of a century 
that intervened between the descent of the Spirit at Pentecost 
and the date of our Epistle is sufficient time to account for the 
change. . 

ἑρμηνεία. Osiander, Maier, etc., hold that this word is diffi- 
cult to explain if the tongues were not foreign languages. 
The real difficulty is to understand why, if a person spoke 
Christian mysteries to his own edification in a foreign lan- | 
guage, he could not himself interpret what he said to the 
edification of others, so as to render a special gift of interpre- 
tation unnecessary. But it is not more inconceivable that 
ecstatic utterances should be interpreted in the Church than 
it was to Plato that a μάντις, whose intellect was enthralled 
by the very nature of the oracular responses, should require a 
προφήτης rationally to interpret his utterances. There are 
ideas in a musical composition or a painting which require to 
be translated into words in order to be understood by a person 
who is not a musician or a painter. It sometimes happens 
that the author cannot interpret his own work, and certainly 
no one else can do so adequately. In the same way religious 
ecstasy may be very real and edifying to the man himself, 
even though another must interpret its meaning. It is hardly 
correct to say, with Neander, that the ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν cor- 
responds to the scientific interpretation of Scripture; for the 
tongues were ecstatic utterances, and the power of interpret- 


994 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ing them cannot have involved research and critical estimate’ 
of evidence. 

V.11. Summary of what has been said from ver. 4 to ver. 
10, to emphasize the Spirit’s action in the distribution of the 
Charismata. In the midst of diversity the creative energy of 
the one governing mind and sovereign, though not arbitrary, 
“will manifests its presence, and ought to exclude all pride and 
envy on the part of the recipients of the Spirit’s gifts (cf. iv. 7). 
The word ἐνεργεῖ is a direct reference to ἐνεργῶν in ver. 6. 
Taken in conjunction with the notion of will (βούλεται), it 
certainly implies the personality of the Spirit. The divinity 
of the Spirit is not here stated. 

to ἕν. Not only is it the same Spirit that works, but that 
Spirit is one in His inmost being and purpose. The oneness 
that pervades the diversity of tle Church is the direct conse- 
quence of the oneness of the Spirit. 

Vv. 12-30, The unity in diversity that characterizes the 
work of the Spirit is the result, not only of the oneness of the 
Spirit, but also of the organic nature of the Church as it is 
the body of Christ. This notion of ‘ body ” is applied to the 
Church thus:. First, the Church is, ike the human body, one 
(vv. 12,13). Second, the Church, like the body, though one, 
has many members (vv. 14-16). Third, multiplicity of mem- 
bers is necessary, (a) to the perfection (vv. 17, 18),-and (0) 
to the very being of the body itself (vv. 19, 20). Fourth, 
the superior members cannot dispense with the weak; yea, 
greater honour is bestowed on the weaker members (vv. 
21-24). Fifth, all the members have a fellow-feeling (vv. 
25, 26). Sixth, the illustration is applied to the body of 
Christ, which is the Church (vv. 27-80). 

V.12. The body is an analogue of Christ, inasmuch as it 
is one body but has many members. Καθάπερ is the usual 
word to introduce an analogy (cf. Rom. xii. 4). Χριστός 
cannot mean merely the Church (Grot., De Wette, etc.), nor 
does the Apostle speak of Christ simply as head (Chrys., 
Theophyl., Hstius, Meyer, etc.). He regards Christ here as 
the personal subject, the ““Ego,”’? whose body is the Church. 
“ Christus non localiter, sed mystice et virtualiter, sive opera- 
tive et per efficientiam, est corpus, hypostasis, anima et spiritus 
totius Heclesie ” (Cor.a Lap.). Similarly Neander, Hofmann. 


, ἜΧΩ ΝΜ 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—xII. 10-13. 325 


The expression might be formally more exact, but it would 
also be more modern, if the Apostle had said, ‘ As the Person 
is one while the members of his body are many, so also Christ 
is one but the members of His mystical body, the Church, are 
many.” ‘Thinkers in ancient times had a difficulty to express 
the notion of personality. St. Paul has the expression ὁ ἐσὼ 
ἄνθρωπος in Rom. vii. 22, which could not well be used of 
Christ. In Rom. xii. 5 we meet with the words ἕν σῶμά ἐσμεν 
ἐν Χριστῷ. But this would not have sufficiently conveyed the 
notion of the unity of the Church as it is derived from union 
with Christ. It has been said that the Church is the con- 
tinuation of the incarnation. It is nearer the truth to say that 
the Church is the express image and πληρῶμα of the glorified 
Lord. Cf. Eph. i. 23. “ Totum ergo Christus” (Augustine, 
Enarr. in Psalm. cxlii.). All the members are instinct with 
one personality. 

τοῦ ἑνός must be omitted. So δὲ Α Β Ο, Vulg. But Ὁ 
inserts it. 

V. 18. He shows how the Church is one in virtue of its 
union with Christ. As the human body is an organic whole 
because of the indwelling spirit, so also the Church is the 
body of Christ because Christ dwells in it. ‘“ The Lord,” that 
is Christ, “is the Spirit ” (2 Cor. iii. 17), and “ the quicken- 
ing Spirit ”’ (xv. 45), without whom the Church wouid be but 
an aggregate, not an organism. A homan body is part of a 
human person because that personality is in the form of an 
indwelling spirit. Christ is the Spirit that dwells in the 
Church, and in virtue of that indwelling the Church is the 
body of Christ. The indwelling of Christ is, therefore, dis- 
tinct in idea from the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. 

eis ἕν σῶμα, not “in reference to one body,’’ but “into one 
body ”; and this may mean either “so as to be united to one 
body ” or “so as to form one body.” But the former notion 
would probably be expressed by εἰς τὸ ἕν σῶμα, and the latter 
meaning is rendered natural by the word wavres. So Chrys., 
Theod. Mops., Theophyl. 

The εἰς before ἕν πνεῦμα must be omitted, as in δὶ BC Ὁ. 
“Ev πνεῦμα will be cognate accus. after ἐποτέσθημεν. Cf. 
Mark x. 38,; Sir. xv. 3, ὕδωρ σοφίας motices αὐτόν. But 
ἐποτίσθημεν may mean “ were given one Spirit to drink ” (as 


326 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


in ili. 2) or “were watered with one Spirit ” (as in iii. 7). Tf 
the former rendering is adopted, the reference will be to the 
Lord’s Supper, and the two sacraments will have been men- 
tioned in this verse. The aor. is nota sufficient objection, for 
it may be gnomic (cf. note on vii. 28). So Chrys. (at first), 
Calvin, Cor. a Lap., Estius, Kling, Wordsworth, Heinrici. 
But the metaphor is unnatural and disturbs the idea elsewhere 
connected with the Supper, that drinking the wine signifies 
participation in the blood of Christ. The other rendering will 
contain a double allusion: first, to the watering of plants; 
second, to immersion in baptism (as in Rom. vi. 4, cuve- 
τάφημεν) ; and ποτίζω will express the notion of abundance 
and power. Hence it is not a frigid tautology. The Spirit 
is given in baptism (Tit. 111. 8) so copiously that our baptism 
virtually contains all the extraordinary and supernatural gifts 
and powers that manifested themselves in the Church. Like 
plants, we are drenched in the Spirit. ‘The one shower waters 
all the fields and soaks through the earth to the rootlets 
of every particular blade of grass. The reference to baptism 
is adopted by Chrys., Gicum., Theophyl., Bengel, De Wette, 
_ Meyer. 

Vv. 14-16. The Church, though one, has many members. 
The asyndeton in ver. 15 introduces an enumeration of special 
instances of the general statement. Ail members of the 
human body are not one member. The foot is as much part 
of the body as the hand, and the ear as much as the eye. 
That the foot is not hand does not exclude the foot from the 
unity of the body, and that the ear is not eye does not 
exclude the ear from the unity of the body. It is the cele- 
brated apologue of Menenius Agrippa (Livy 11. 32), of which 
St. Paul had in all likelihood never heard ; applied, however, 
not to the political, but to the spiritual organism. Cf. Seneca, 
De Tra I. xxxi.: ‘‘Omnia inter se membra consentiunt, quia 
singula servari totius interest.”” Chrys. well observes that the 
Apostle mentions the meanest and the most honourable of the 
members, the foot and the eye, but does not say that the foot 
-envies the eye. The foot envies the hand, which is but a 
little superior to itself. It is the ear that envies the eye. 

ov παρὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος. Most expositors 
understand this as an interrogative senteuce. So De Wette, 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—x1I. 14-18. 327 


Maier, Hodge, Alford. But we should then expect μή, not οὐ, 
παρὰ τοῦτο, as the answer must be negative. At any rate it 
can only be, as Canon Evans says, a semi-interrogation: “ It is 
not, is it?”? The position emphasizes παρὰ τοῦτο : “It is not 
on this account, if on any account, not a part of the body.” 

mapa, only here in the New Test. in the sense of “on account 
of.” It has occasionally this meaning in class. Greek, espec. 
in Thucydides (e.g. I. 141) and Demosthenes (e.g. Phil. I. p. 49). 
Several instances occur in M. Antoninus (6.4. παρὰ τὴν ἄγνοιαν, 
ΤΙ. 1). Winer compares propter from prope. In the older 
Hnglish authors, and even now as a vulgarism, “along of” 
means “because of.” Of. Hooker, H. P. V.i., “so be it not 
long of them.” 

τοῦτος Meyer and Evans think this means, not the fact 
that the foot is not hand, but its discontent at not being hand. 
But this view is inconsistent with the evident purpose of the 
Apostle in introducing the illustration. That member of the 
Church which has received inferior gifts has no reason to envy 
his brother who has superior gifts, inasmuch as both are 
equally members of Christ’s body. Though the foot is not 
the hand, it is not on that account not part of the body. 

Vv.17,18. Diversity of members necessary to the perfection 
of the body. Not only is the ear part of the body, but hearing 
is no less a function of the body than seeing. The Apostle 
ascribes this to the will and arrangement of God, in order, as 
Chrys. says, to keep before the reader’s mind that the diver- 
sity of gifts in the Church depends on the will of the Spirit 
(ver. 11). 

V.18. νυνὶ δέ, “now, however, as things are.” In class. 
Greek νῦν δέ often occurs in this sense, but hardly νυνὶ δέ, 
the pronominal affix ὁ restricting the meaning to the actual 
present. ABC read viv here, 8C νυνί. Cf. v.11. | 

ἔθετο may mean “ made,” constituit, as in ix. 18; Heb. i. 2, 
et al.; but much more probably it means “ arranged,” “ set,” 
disposuit, and is to be closely joined to ἐν τῷ σώματε CF. ver. 
28. With St. Paul, as with Aristotle, the body is in idea prior. « 
to its various members, which the Apostle describes as ‘ set 
in” the body that it may attain to its complete condition and 
most perfect form. 

Vv. 19, 20. Diversity of members necessary to the very 


328 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


being of the body. The organic unity of the whole requires 
diversity of parts; and, as things actually are, God has so 
arranged that there shall be many members, but one body. 
In ver. 18 the Apostle represents the various members as 
being, so to speak, inserted in the body; in ver. 19 he repre- 
sents the body itself as having no organic existence without 
its members. 

V.19. πὸ τὸ σῶμα; Cf. Arist., Pol. VIII. (V.) iii. 6: 
ὥσπερ yap σῶμα ἐκ μερῶν συγκεῖται καὶ Set αὐξάνεσθαι 
ἀνάλογον, ἵνα μένῃ συμμετρία, εἰ δὲ μή, φθείρεται. 

Vv. 21-24. The superior members cannot dispense with 
the service of the meaner; yea, greater honour is bestowed 
on the feebler members. 

V. 21. As the inferior member cannot envy the superior 
one, so the superior member cannot afford to despise the 
inferior one. Hence δέ has here an adversative force: “on 
the other hand.” Ov δύναται is emphatic. We need not 
suppose that the Apostle allegorizes the eye, the hand, the 
head, the foot. He mentions together eye and hand, because 
it is apparent to all that the eye cannot do the work of the 
hand; and he adds that even the head, the highest and 
sovereign part of the body, cannot execute its own volitions 
without the co-operation of the feet, the lowest and least 
intelligent of the members. 

πάλιν, “to mention another instance.” The wsval phrase 
in class. Greek is ἀλλὰ μὴν (οὐδέ) or αὖθις δέ. Cf. 1 Jobn ii. 8. 

Ver. 22. ἀλλὰ, “nay,” quin immo, as in John xvi. 2 (cf. 
vi. 11). 

πολλῷ μᾶλλον, “much rather,” multo potius. The μᾶλλον 
is not to be connected with ἀναγκαῖα. For the Apostle does 
not say that the weaker members are more necessary than the 
others, but denies that the superior members can dispense 
with the help of the weaker ones. Far from that, they are 
necessary. 

τὰ δοκοῦντα μέλη emphasizes the δοκοῦντα more than τὰ μέλη 
τὰ δοκοῦντα does. Cf. Matt. xxv. 34, τὴν ἡτοιμασμένην ὑμῖν 
βασιλείαν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, Rom. vill. 18, τὴν μέλλουσαν 
δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι. He is speaking, not of members of the 
body which are always weak members, but of those which on 
occasion seem to be weaker, as for instance when any member 


\ 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—XxII. 19-24. 329 


is diseased. So Alford rightly. It cannot be said that the 
parts which are most indispensable for the performance of the 
vital functions are weaker than those parts, such as the eye, 
which are not absolutely essential for the subsistence, though 
they are for the perfection, of the body. We have also in 
Arist., De Part. Anim. 11. 8 and 10, the notion that some parts 
of the body are more necessary than others. This ver. is cited 
by Clement of Rome (Ad Cor. 37). 

V. 23. Again, the less honourable members have more 
abundant honour bestowed upon them; inasmuch, that is, as 
they are covered with dress. As the woman’s long hair is 
a symbol at once of subjection and of glory superadded by 
reason of that subjection, so also dress is a bestowal of greater 
honour on the Jess honourable members. What conceals also 
adorns. He says ἃ δοκοῦμεν to intimate that the dishonour 
attaching to some members as compared with others arises 
from our sentiments, though it is true those sentiments are 
natural and right. 

περιτίθεμεν, not here in the more general meaning of “ con- 
ferring”’ (as in Prov. xii. 9), but in the special sense of 
‘putting on as a garment”; and this physical meaning the 
word always bears in the New Test. 

τιμήν, “a covering in token of honour.” Cf. note on xi. 
10. ; 

Ta ἀσχήμονω ἡμῶν, that is, Ta γεννητικά, etc. Cf. Rev. xvi. 
15. 

εὐσχημοσύνην. .. ἔχει. Chrys., Meyer, etc., explain this 
more abundant comeliness to mean the more comely cover- 
ing with which the uncomely parts are clothed. But in that 
case the clause would be merely a repetition of the previous 
one, and, besides, the Apostle afterwards ascribes this more 
abundant comeliness to the arrangement of God in tempering 
tovether the body, which can hardly mean that the uncomely 
parts are intended by God to be clad in more comely attire. 
The greater-comeliness refers rather to function, Marriage 
is honourable (τίμιος, Heb. xiii. 4). On the other hand, the 
father that prevents his daughter from being married is said, 
in certain circumstances, ὠσχημονεῖν (vil. 36). 

V. 24. The Apostle has spoken of comeliness of function as 
compensating for the uncomeliness of the members. This is 


330 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


still more recognisable in the absence of comeliness in the 
functions performed by the comely members of the body. For 
example, seeing and hearing are, in point of sentiment, neutral 
functions, and the eye and the ear are comely members. These 
senses are admired, but their function confers no dignity and 
loss of them brings no shame. But the function of the un- 
comely parts is an honour, and mutilation a disgrace. Now 
this more abundant comeliness of function is bestowed by God 
to compensate for the uncomeliness of the members, and it is 
withheld from the comely parts because they have no need of it. 
συνεκέρασε, “compounded.” But the emphasis is on 6 
Θεός. It was God who fashioned this organic compound, the 
body. This is just the point of difference between the Apostle’s 
teleology and that of the Greek philosophers. Where Aris- 
totle says ‘ nature ” St. Paul says “God.” The difference is 
practically important to the Apostle’s argument in several 
ways. Jfirst, by ascribing the physical constitution of man 
to a personal and good God, the Apostle can infer at once 
that it must be the best, while, if it be simply the result of 
natural forces, its excellence can only be known empirically. 
Second, the Apostle includes among the manifold effects 
which he ascribes to God, not only the physical constitution 
of things, but also men’s instinctive sentiment of seemliness. 
If any member is diseased, the greater care taken of it springs 
from a divinely implanted instinct ; if any member is thought 
to be less honourable, it is God that has given this thought 
and at the same time implanted the sentiment which leads 
men to bestow on the function of that member more abundant 
honour. Third, the reference to God’s action in the adjustment 
of the various members of the body reminds the readers that 
the bestowal of divers gifts on the members of Christ’s body 
which is the Church is also from God. On συγκεράννυμι in 
this signification cf. Plato, Tim. p. 35, τρίτον ἐξ ἀμφοῖν ἐν 
μέσῳ ξυνεκεράσατο οὐσίας εἶδος. In the New Test. it occurs 
‘only here in the physical and only in Heb. iv. 2 in the meta- 
phorical sense. 
ὑστερουμένῳ. So RABC. D has ὑστεροῦντι. Cf. note 
oni. 7. Supply. mentally τῆς τιμῆς. 
δούς. The aor. partic. sometimes in narrative (that is, en 
joined with a verb in the aor. or historical pres.) expresses 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—xXII. 24-26. 991 


simultaneous action. Cf. Rom. iv. 20, ἐνεδυναμώθη . . . 
δοὺς δόξαν, Phil. ii. 7; 1 Tim. i. 12, But χαρισάμενος in 
Col. ii. 13 is not an instance. So also in class. Greek, e.g. 
Plat., Pheed. p. 60, εὖ γ᾽ ἐποίησας ἀναμνήσας pe. In fact it 
bears its purely aoristic signification. 

Vv. 25, 26. Mention of God’s action in the constitution 
of the human body has prepared us for a statement of God’s 
purpose in it, viz. that there may be no schism in the body. 
This, again, especially when the illustration has changed into 
an allegory through the personification of the bodily members 
in these verses, prepares us for the application of what the 
Apostle has said concerning the body to the Corinthian 
Christians themselves as the body of Christ. 

V. 25. The word σχίσμα implies a personification of the 
bodily members, as “ dissedisse” in Livy (ut swp.) and “ con- 
sentiunt” in Seneca (wt sup.) do. But the Apostle does not 
say otdovs with Aristotle (wt swp.), because he represents the 
unity of the body, not as that of a commonwealth, but as that 
of a physical organism. When factions rend the Church, it 
is not a sedition, but a tearing to pieces. 

μεριμνῶσι. The opposite of σχίσμα is the anxious solici- 
tude of one member for the well-being of the others. 
Μεριμνᾶν is stronger than ἐπιμελεῖσθαι. 

V. 26. He mentions two opposite examples of the mutual 
care of the bodily members. He still personifies them, espe- 
cially when he represents them as gloritied and rejoicing, 
The fellow-suffering of the members is an allegorical expres- 
sion for, probably, the reflex action of the muscles. But the 
clause that immediately follows cannot fairly be restricted to a 
merely physical effect, such as the exhilaration of the system 
when any part recovers from acute pain. This does not assign 
their full meaning to the words δοξάζεται and συγχαίρει. 
Δόξα must mean something more than εὐεξία. To “ glorify ” 
one member is not merely to preserve it in a healthy con- 
dition ; and-the “joy” of the other members is more than 
“quies in bona dispositione”? (Hstius). We cannot have a 
better illustration than that of Chrysostom: “the head is 
crowned and all the members have a share in the honour, the 
eyes laugh when the mouth speaks.” It is true that the con- 
necting link between the movement of the lips and the laughter 


302 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


of the eyes is mental. But that does not detract from the 
singular beauty of the Apostle’s allegory. 

Vv. 27-80. The application of the allegory of the human 
body to the mystical body of Christ, which is the Church. 

V. 27, This verse is the minor premise ofa syllogism. We 
must mentally supply the conclusion: ‘ Therefore, there ought 
to be no schism in the Church.” Cf. i. 17. 

ὑμεῖς, emphatic: ‘ you, notwithstanding your factions and 
corruptions.” The Apostle’s word certainly implies that the 
Church is the body of Christ, not in consequence of resem- 
blance to Christ in moral character, but mystically, through 
the supernatural power of Christ Himself exerted upon the 
κόσμος and the natural man, Moral growth is the effect, not 
the cause, of union with Christ. 

σῶμα, not “a body” (Mosheim, Baur), as if there could be 
many σώματα Χριστοῦ, but “ the body of Christ.” Cf. note 
on 111. 16, ναός. 

ἐκ μέρους. D has ἐκ μέλους. So also several of the 
Fathers, e.g. Severian (Cat.) and Epiphanius (Her. 66) ; and 
the Vulg. has “ de membro.” The meaning would, I suppose, 
be “member joined to member,’ “one member springing 
from another,” that other being, according to Severian, the 
head! But NA BC have ἐκ μέρους. Three explanations have 
been offered of the phrase. (1) Hofmann renders it “ partially,” 
in contrast to “‘ perfectly,” as in xiii. 9,12. So Origen, Hom. 
17 in Lev., ‘non ex integro, sed ex parte.” But the contrast 
between the present imperfection and the future glory of the 
Church is quite foreign to the Apostle’s purpose. (2) Clrys., 
Theod., Gicum., Erasmus explain it to mean “ partly ”’ in con- 
trast to “ the whole,” as in Rom. xi. 25, joining it to σῶμα as 
well as to μέλη, as if the Church in Corinth were only a part, 
not the whole, of the body and of the members of Christ. 
This is certainly incorrect. It is the idea of the cecumenical 
Church overriding that of the integral nature of the individual 
Church assembly. Scripture nowhere speaks of a local Church 
as part of the universal Church. Where two or three Christians 
are met in the name of Christ, there is the Church, and all 
Christians throughout the world are also the Church. Cf. note 
ou ii. 16. Besides, the position of the words ἐκ μέρους is 
decisive against this view. But Theophylact does not joi the 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—XIL. 26-28. 833 


words to σῶμα. He says the Church in Corinth is an integral 
Church, but in relation to the Catholic Church a part only. 
He incorrectly supposes the Apostle to be speaking of the 
members of the universal Church, whereas the subject is the 
members of Christ’s body, which he has already said is in its 
entirety in the Corinthian Church. (3) Estius, Neander, De 
Wette, Osiander, Meyer think ἐκ μέρους means “ according as 
each one has his definite portion in the body of Christ.” TI 
am not satisfied that ἐκ μέρους can bear this meaning, which 
would, at least more usually, be expressed by πρὸς μέρος. But 
another objection to this view is that it makes membership 
in the body of Christ depend on distinction of function. On 
the contrary, each one has his own distinct work becanse 
he is a member of Christ’s body. (4) Grotius, Maier and the 
majority of commentators explain ἐκ μέρους to mean “ con- 
sidered as individuals,” making it synon. with καθ᾽ εἷς. Meyer 
and De Wette object that to say this is unnecessary. Quite 
the reverse. It is essential to state how the Church can be in 
one aspect the body, in another aspect the members, of Christ. 
The Church is never said to be a member of Christ’s body, 
ard the individual Christian is never said to be the body of 
Christ. In this the notion of body differs from that of temple, 
inasmuch as the indwelling of the Spirit, which constitutes 
the temple, is an indwelling in persons, while the organic unity, 
which constitutes the body, implies diversity of members. 

V. 28. Enumeration of the various functions of the mem- 
bers, arranged according to worth. Hooker (Eccles. Pol. V. 
Ixxviil. 8) justly warns us not to surmise “incompatible offices 
where nothing is meant but sundry graces, gifts, and abilities 
which Christ bestowed.” Cf. also Rothe, Anfdnge, p. 256. 

καί, epexegetical: ‘‘ that is to say,” dico autem. Cf. Rom. 
1, 5, χάριν καὶ ἀποστολήν. 

ἔθετο, “ placed for His own use.” The mid. voice and the 
signification of the verb (cf. note on ver. 18) express the exact 
notion that these various functions depend on the sovereign 
will of God, who is source and end of all. In Eph. iv. 11 the 
Apostle has ἔδωκε, because his purpose is to declare the rich- 
ness of Christ’s gift, not the sovereignty of His power. Cf. 
Clem. Rom., Ad Oor. 38, καθὼς καὶ ἐτέθη ἐν τῷ χαρίσματι 
. αὐτοῦ. 


994 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, that is, in the Church universal and, 
therefore, in the local Church. Both are equally the body of 
Christ. Hence the sing. 

πρῶτον x.T.. We have the same order in Eph. iv. 11, 
only that there evangelists are introduced between prophets 
and teachers, and pastors are joined to teachers. [Ὁ is evident, 
therefore, that the Apostle means to enumerate the spiritual 
gifts according to their rank and value in the Church. Apostle- 
ship was the first gift in point of time and the most essential, 
because the apostles were witnesses of the facts on which the 
entire structure of Christianity rests and from which all the 
subsequent development of the Church takes it rise. Theod., 
Meyer, De Wette understand the name “apostle” in the wider 
sense, including Andronicus and Junius, who are said in Rom. 
xvi. 7 to be ἐπίσημοι ἐν tots ἀποστόλοις. But as it is their 
witness to the truth of Christ’s resurrection that constitutes 
the pre-eminence of the apostles, which is the point of the 
passage, we must restrict the name here to the Twelve and 
Paul. So Calvin, etc. Next to apostleship ranks prophecy 
aud, next after prophecy, teaching. Apostles bore witness to 
facts. They and others interpreted those facts, prophets by 
the immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost, teachers by the 
slow and often uncertain efforts of their own understanding 
assisted by the Spirit. Cf. xiv. 26; Rom. xii. 7. The witness 
is the precursor of the interpreter, and an inspired interpreta- 
tion has greater authority than an uninspired. The distinction 
between prophet and teacher is not that the former preaches 
to the heathen, the latter to the Church (Estius, Neander). 
This is to confound the prophets with the evangelists (Eph. 
iv.11). There were prophets in the Corinthian Church, whose 
inspired utterances were judged by the rest (xiv. 29); and 
Barnabas and Paul were prophets and teachers before they 
were set apart for their first missionary journey. Cf. Acts 
pew. 2: 

ἔπειτα «.T.. Of. note on ver. 10. For era X® ABC 
read ἔπειτα. It is difficult to suppose that ἔπειτα does not 


express inferiority to the gifts previously mentioned. But 


why does the Apostle use abstract terms? It is unnatural to 
think that χαρίσματα means persons. It is better to consider, 


with Neander, that these gifts were not so strictly bound to » 


ἘΠΕ 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—XII. 28. 335 


certain persons as the gifts of apostleship, prophecy, and 
teaching. 

ἀντιλήψεις, κυβερνήσεις. From the miraculous powers the 
Apostle passes to the practical administration of the Church, 
which is of two kinds, helps and governments; that is, various 
ways of helping and various ways of governing. ἀντίληψις 
means ‘‘succour” in LXX. (e.g. Ps. Ixxxiii. 6), but not in 
class. Greek. Vitringa (De Vet. Syn. II. 8), Stanley, and 
others identify ἀντιλήψεις with the ἑρμηνεία yrooody of 
ver. 10. This would have the advantage of making the pre- 
sent enumeration identical with that in ver. 10. Herveus, De 
Lyra, etc., think ἀντιλήψεις were inferior officers appointed 
to assist the higher dignitaries, which is to foist on the verse 
the notions of later times. A comparison of this passage with 
Acts xx. 35 leaves no room to doubt that ἀντιλήψεις meant 
various ways of helping the poor and the sick members of the 
Church. So Chrys. and the majority of expositors. Again, 
κυβερνήσεις will be the various ways of administering Church 
government. Maybe the two words express the duties re- 
spectively of the deacons and the bishops. If so, we have 
here the faint beginnings of the separation of offices. When 
κυβερνᾶν is used in the sense of “ governing ” in class. Greek, 
the original meaning of steering a vessel is seldom lost sight 
of. But in later authors, such as Plutarch, the allusion seems 
to have disappeared from the word. Whether the administra- 
tion of Church matters was the function of all the members 
or of a presbytery, the Apostle does not say in this passage 
(cf. note on vi. 4). But the absence of “ pastors” (Eph. iv. 
11), “bishops” (1 Tim. iii. 2), “deacons” (1 ‘Tim. iii. 8), 
and “elders” (1 Tim. vy. 17), suggests that the government 
of the Corinthian Church at this time was a pure democracy. 
In the abundance of spiritual gifts there was no room for 
official authority. One thing at least is evident from this 
verse, that the function of teaching was often separate from 
that of ruling. 

γένη γλωσσῶν, last and least. Cf. note on ver. 10. 

Avoiding a too artificial classification, we may yet admit 
that the gifts thus enumerated correspond to the various 
aspects in which Christianity presents itself to our notice: 
jist, as a revelation of God’s truth; second, as a deliverance 


336 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


from misery by miraculous power or otherwise; third, as a 
visible kingdom on earth; fourth, as an assimilation and 
sanctification of the ecstatic side of human nature. 

Vv. 29, 30. Not only the Divine appointment, but also 
the actual state of things demands and proves that diversity 
of function must be as essential to the mystical body of Christ 
as unity of life. 

δυνάμεις. Bengel, De Wette, etc., think itis nom. If so, 
it means “workers of miracles.”” But it seems less forced 
to make it accus. after ἔχουσιν and render it “ power to do 
various kinds of miracles.” 

V.31, The δέ is, not transitional (Meyer), but adversative 
(De Wette). The antithesis between this and the previous 
verse is twofold. first, he has said that the lowest gifts have 
their place in the Church; he now urges his readers, on the 
other hand, not to rest content with the inferior gifts, but 
to aim at possessing the higher. Second, he has previously 
declared God’s sovereignty in assigning to every man his 
gifts ; now he states, with equal boldness, the opposite truth, 
that effort is necessary to their attainment and that the highest 
are within reach of the earnest seeker. He does not strike a 
middle course between the assertion of God’s sovereignty and 
of man’s freedom or attempt to reconcile them, but fearlessly 
maintains both as the foundation of practical exhortation. 

ζηλοῦν. Cf. Hur., Hec. 255, ζηλοῦτε τιμάς. Cf. note on 
mv. 1. 

μείζονα. So NABC; adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., 
Westc. and Hort. D has κρείσσονα. Maier, Osiander, Meyer 
think μείζονα crept in from xiii. 13. Cf. xiv. 5, μείζων ὁ mpo- 
φητεύων. Both words mean the same thing. 

In the latter part of the verse the thought suddenly rises. 
The result is a sweet hymn in praise of Christian love. 
E:mulous pursuit of highest gifts has been commended. But 
emulation, when it is purest, must yield to another and better 
way of secking spiritual gifts, even the opposite of emulation. 
Hitherto the Apostle has urged his readers to the chase along 
the earthly road of ambition. Emulation in Christian work is 
not discouraged, until it ceases to have any glory by reason 
of the glory that excelleth, which is Christ’s via dulvrosa of 
self-forgetting love. 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—XII. 31. 837 


καὶ ἔτι, “and furthermore.” The usual phrase is ἔτι δέ or 
ἔτι δὲ καί. ‘The words do not mean “and yet,” which would 
be ὅμως, though ἔτι and “ yet” are etymologically the same 
word. 

καθ᾽ ὑπερβολήν, an adverbial phrase having the force of an 
adjective and qualifying ὁδόν, “a superior way.” Cf. Rom. 
vii. 13, καθ᾽ ὑπερβολὴν ἁμαρτωλός, “ exceedingly sinful.” Cf. 
note on vill. 7, ἕως ἄρτι. If the phrase were used adverbially, 
ὁδόν would have the art., and it is not easy to see what in- 
telligible meaning the rendering of Ewald and Hofmann (“I 
show abundantly ”’) can yield in this place. 

ὁδόν. Does he mean that love is a more excellent thing 
than all the Charismata, or that pursuit of love is a more sure 
and excellent means than eagerness of emulation to attain the 
Charismata? The former is the view of Tert. (Contra Mare. 
Υ. 8), Hstius, Billroth, Olshausen, Riickert, etc.; the latter 
that of Chrys., Theophyl., Neander, Meyer, Osiander, De 
Wette, Heinrici, etc. This seems to me to be correct, because 
the other view implies that a contrast is intended between the 
exhortation to seek the higher gifts and the exhortation to 
secure the more excellent grace, which would require ὅμως, 
not ἔτι. Besides, ὁδόν in this passage more naturally means 
“ way ” to the attainment of something beyond itself. At the 
same time the superiority of love as a means is lost sight 
of, it must be acknowledged, in a beautiful panegyric of love 
as it transcends in worth, not only the higher Charismata of 
knowledge and prophecy, but also the moral graces of faith 
and hope. It is not through the exercise of gifts that we 
attain to love; it is love that developes the gifts within us, - 
and love is greater than gifts. The Apostle’s praise of love: 
is partly a digression, introduced to rebuke indirectly the 
dissensions of the Corinthian Church, partly a statement of 
the peculiarly Christian means to secure possession of spiritual: 
gifts for the edification of the Church and render them in-. 
nocuous to their possessor, partly also a glimpse of a moral 
development different in kind from gifts and greater in moral 
worth than all other moral virtues, partly a reiteration in a 
new form of the idea that the Church is an organic body, 
What, objectively considered, may be designated unity is, 
subjectively regarded, love. Thus does the Apostle, after his: 

z 


338 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


wont, hold the balance even between the mystical side of 
Christianity and the human sentiments to which Christianity 
gives birth. Denial of the former ends in sheer individualism ; 
forgetfulness of the latter transforms Christianity into an 
earthly polity or hardens it into a theological creed or narrows 
it into an intoJerant sect. The conception of the πόλις as an 
organic whole had been vividly realized by the Greek mind. 
But, as the highest moral principle reached by the Greeks 
was τοῦ καλοῦ ἕνεκα, they failed to unite their idea of the 
state with a doctrine of individual morality. Hither the in- 
dividual was lost in the state or the state in the individual. 
Christianity establishes a Church and teaches goodness. It 
can do both by erecting its society and its morality on the 
most personal and at the same time most social of human 
sentiments. He is good who loves, and love: makes the 
Church. It follows that the word must be understood through- 
out in its deeper meaning and wider application, love to God 
as well as to the brethren. This is sufficient reason for pre- 
ferring Tyndale’s rendering “love,” adopted in the Genevan 
Bible and the Revised Version, to Wycliffe’s word “ charity,” 
adopted in the Bishops’ Bible and the Authorized Version 

δείκνυμι. Expositors refer this to what follows. They are 
right; but it is not the whole truth. The word glances at the 
purport of nearly all that the Apostle has said in the Epistle. 
‘The Corinthians had erred, not merely in setting too high a 
value on the gift of tongues in comparison with other gifts, 
‘but also in priding themselves on their gifts, yea, in despising 
‘and envying their brethren, and forming hostile factions in 
the Church of God. ‘The surpassing excellence of love as the 
‘divinely appointed means of attaining possession of the higher 
gifts for the edification of the Church is a truth that pervades 
‘the whole Epistle. The Apostle here declares that this is the 
sum of all he has written, and immediately begins his hymn in 
praise of love. 


B. The Praise of Love. 
(πὴ 
The thirteenth chapter may be thus divided: (1) Love con- 
fers on the gifts of the Spirit their special character and worth 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—XII. 31—-xim1. 2. 339 


(vv. 1-3). Contrast λαλῶ and γέγονα. (2) A statement of 
the various manifestations of love, as it is the sentiment that 
springs from the mystical unity of the Church, in contrast to 
the manifestations of the diversity of the Church’s spiritual 
gifts (vv. 4-7). Contrast ἔχω and εἰμί. (3) The inherent 
superiority and consequent longer duration of love, as com- 
pared with the present forms of the spiritual gifts (vv. 8-12). 
Contrast παραδῶ and ὠφελοῦμαι. (4) The superiority of love 
over the moral graces of faith and hope (ver. 13). 

Vv. 1-3. Love confers on the gifts of the Spirit their 
special character and worth. For instance: (1) love renders 
the unintelligent utterance of ecstasy significant (ver. 1); (2) 
love raises the gifts which are significant or powerful, such as 
prophecy and faith, to the rank of moral virtues (ver. 2) ; 
(9) love ensures for those gifts which are themselves moral 
virtues, such as kindness to the poor or the sacrifice of one’s 
life for others, their fitting reward (ver. 3). 

V.1. The gift of tongues without love has no meaning, 
not even to its possessor; for it is love that makes ecstasy 
significant (cf. xiv. 4). The Apostle mentions the gift of 
tongues first, because the Corinthians set the highest value on 
it. Maier, Osiander, Alford argue that this verse proves that 
the tongues meant foreign languages. It proves rather that 
this gift consisted in ecstatic utterance, which would more 
readily suggest the allusion to the tongues of angels, a higher 
form of ecstasy than human, and the comparison of tongues 
to sounding bronze and clanging cymbal. As among men, 
so also among angels, ecstatic utterance may be the best ex-. 
pression sometimes of spiritual emotions, and therefore the 
fittest vehicle of Christian thought. It is not improbable that 
prayer with groanings which cannot be uttered was one form 
which this gift of the Spirit assumed (cf. Rom. viii. 26). 

V.2. The gifts of prophecy and faith have no moral worth 
without love. Prophecy is even without love significant, and 
in this differs from the gift of tongues. Faith is powerful 
even without love. But as love bestows on ecstatic utterance 
@ meaning to the man’s own consciousness and to God, so also 
it imparts to the significant and active gifts of prophecy and 
faith a moral value. Inarticulate tongues become intelligent ; 
intelligent prophecy becomes a form of goodness. Without 


340 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


love the man has many things, but in his own personal and 
spiritual worth is nothing. 

Heinrici divides the verse thus: “If (1) I have prophecy 
and know all the mysteries, and if (2) I have all knowledge, 
and if (3) I have all faith,” etc. He thus makes knowledge 
of mysteries the endowment of the prophet, and supplies ἔχω, 
not εἰδῶ, before γνῶσιν. Against this it may be observed, 
jirst, that πάντα balances πᾶσαν, so that both words are to be 
closely joined together after εἰδῶ, and, second, that the notion 
of γνῶσις is implied in εἰδῶς Meyer makes γνῶσιν as well as 
μυστήρια subordinate to prophecy. Eut against this is the 
evident distinction and co-ordination of both in ver. 8. It is 
more natural to divide the clauses thus: “If (1) I have pro- 
phecy, and if (2) 1 know al] mysteries and all knowledge, 
and if (3) I have all faith,” etc. Yet the second clause is 
more intimately connected with the first than with the third. 
Knowledge of all mysteries is the source of prophecy (ef. 
xiv. 2). Even the truths that are discovered by research 
(γνῶσις) may be taught to others by inspiration (προφητεία). 
So also removing mountains is closely connected with the 
third clause as the effect of faith. Paraphrase: “If I have 
the gift of teaching the mysteries of revelation or of research, 
or if I have faith enough to remove mountains,” etc. Hence 
γνῶσιν is cogn. accus. after εἰδῶ, though it must be confessed 
that the occurrence of a cogn. accus. (γνῶσιν) and of an ob- 
jective accus. (μυστήρια) together is rather awkward. 

ὄρη. Cf. Matt. xvii. 20; xxi, 21. 

μεθιστάνειν, “to remove from their places, and transfer 
them in a mass elsewhere.” The pres. enhances the exploit : 
“remove mountain after mountain.” 

οὐδὲν εἰμί. Of. Plat., Apol. p. 41, ἐὰν δοκῶσί τι εἶναι" μηδὲν 
ὄντες. But St. Paul has undoubtedly a deeper conception 
than any the phrase conveys in class. writers. He distin- 
guishes moral character and position before God from intel- 
lectual endowments, bestowed though they may be by the 
Spirit of God, and from the supernatural power to do miracles, 
as what the man is from what he has (cf. 2 Cor. xii. 11). 

V. 3. Doling out one’s substance to the poor and the 
sacrifice of one’s life for others is of no avail without love. 
Yet another advance in the thought. As love elevates ecstasy 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—XxIII. 2, 3. 341 


to the rank of intellectual prophecy, and prophecy to the rank 
of moral virtue, so also nothing but love will render virtue 
itself, even in its best manifestations, of any avail before the 
judgment-seat of God. Love itself cannot find a more perfect 
and adequate expression or show itself more lovely than in 
the sacrifice of one’s goods and life for others. But without 
love they profit a man nothing in the sight of God. 

ψωμίσω, “dole out in food”? (Evans). The aor. adds em- 
phasis: “if I dole out all at once.” Wwpifw expresses, first, 
that he gives to a large number of persons, so that every one 
can receive but a dole, and, second, that every gift is made by 
the man himself. Chrys., τὴν οἰκεῖαν διακονίαν. Perhaps 
there is a side-glance at the “helps” (xii. 28), that is, the 
charity in the narrower sense of the word which formed a 
prominent feature in the love-feasts of the early Church. 

Lachm. and Treg. read καυθήσωμαι, Tisch. καυθήσομαι, 
Weste. and Hort καυχήσωμαι, after NAB. It may be that 
the copyists changed y into @ because they supposed the 
‘Apostle. referred to the fires of martyrdom, a feature of the 
Neronian persecutions that left a vivid impression on the 
minds of the Christians. Reading καυχήσωμαι, the meaning 
is that these deeds and snfferings are profitless to the man 
that seeks profit in them. He does not gain even the re- 
ward of glory, which he songht. If we read καυθήσομαι (or 
-wpat), the allusion may be to the Jewish martyrology, Dan. 
iii. 28, παρέδωκαν τὰ σώματα αὐτῶν eis πῦρ, and 2 Macc. 
vii. So Augustine (Hp. civ.), De Wette, Heinrici, etc. At 
any rate, we cannot suppose, with Calvin and Neander, a 
prophetic allusion to the persecution under Nero. Cyprian 
also (Hp. 73) thinks it refers to Christian martyrdom. Bp. 
Lightfoot (on Col., p. 395) has wonderfully confirmed the 
otherwise strange supposition that the Apostle alludes to 
Buddhist self-immolation:— “ An Indian fanatic, attached to 
an embassy sent by King Porus to Augustus, astonished the 
Greeks and Romans by burning himself at Athens. ; 
It is clear from Plutarch that the ‘Tomb of the Indian’ was 
one of the sights shown to strangers.”” Cf. Clem. Al., Strom. 
IV. p. 571 Potter, θανάτῳ δὲ ἑαυτοὺς ἀποδιδόασι κενῷ, 
καθάπερ καὶ οἱ τῶν ᾿Ινδῶν γυμνοσοφισταὶ ματαίῳ πυρί. 


Lucian (De Morte Peregr. p. 772) speaks of the vanity of the 


342 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Brahmins (κενοδόξους ἀνθρώπους) who immolated themselves 
on the pyre. An instance of it is mentioned by Ailian (Var. 
dist. v. 6). One would almost suspect that in the eyes of 
even honest men among the heathen, such as M. Antoninus 
(XI. 3), the Christians themselves came under the same cate- 
gory. Clement, in the context of the passage just cited, 
considers it necessary to say that such men are not to be 
found among true Christians. ; 

καυθήσωμαι. The fut. conj. occurs in Byzantine writers 
and Scholiasts. Recent critics usually omit it in the New 
' Test.; eg. 1 Pet. iti. 1, κερδηθήσονται for -cwvras, Rev. 
xvill. 14, εὑρήσουσιν for εὑρήσῃς. In Luke xiii. 28 Treg. 
reads ὅταν ὄψεσθε. If we read ὄψησθε, it may be an aor. 
from pres. ὄπτω. In John xvii. 2 Treg. has δώσῃ, as fut., 
Westc. and Hort δώσει. But δώσῃ may be aor. In Rev. 
vil. 3NAC read δώσει. 

οὐδὲν ὠφελοῦμαι. Cf. Matt. xvi. 26. 

Vv. 4-7. From a statement of the relation in which love 
stands to the gifts of the Spirit the Apostle passes to an 
enumeration of the main characteristics of Christian love. 
We may surmise that his purpose is partly to rebuke the 
Corinthians for their lack of love, partly to indicate in what 
various ways love guides the exercise of the gifts, and partly 
to show the superior worth of love compared with the 
greatest gifts. First, he has constant reference to the dis- 
tracted state of the Corinthian Church. Again, a close con- 
nection subsists between the right and effective use of intel- 
Jectual gifts and the moral and spiritual state of the heart. 
In nothing, perhaps, is this more certain than in the exercise 
of the gifts of prophecy and preaching. The Apostle traces 
the lack of the greater gifts in the Corinthian Church to a 
moral defect, by showing that love gives birth to those 
emotions from which the noblest endowments spring. Finally, 
these verses connect what he has said of the gifts of the Spirit 
with the latter part of the chapter, where he speaks of the per- 
petuity of love and the transient character of the gifts. This 
difference is the direct consequence of the moral worth of love. 

The reader will not fail to observe that almost all the attri- 
butes here ascribed to love are negative, though Christian love 
itself is the most aggressive form of goodness. Scripture 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—XIII. 3, 4. 343 


prefers negative descriptions of moral virtue, partly because 
Christianity necessarily assumes an antagonistic attitude to- 
wards the world’s vices, partly because, as goodness is one 
and evil is many, the negative action of virtue consists in 
avoidance of many aspects of evil, while its positive action is 
comprehended in a few simple forms. In our passage Christian 
love, on its positive side, appears only in two things, kindness 
to men and joy in the truth, and these two are really one. 
For the “truth” is the Gospel, the product of God’s philan- 
thropy ; and kindness to men is a gladsome imitatio Christi. 
V. 4. μακροθυμεῖ. Jonathan Edwards (Charity and Its 
Fruits, p..60) defines “ long-suffering ” as “ meekness in bear- 
ing injuries.” This is too narrow, and makes μακροθυμία 
synon. with πραότης. Tertullian (De Patientid 12), Cyprian 
(Test. III. 3), Chrys., Theophyl. explain it to mean greatness 
of soul or magnanimity. Maxpov seems to have been used 
for μέγα in the later Greek (cf. Hesych. s.v. μακρός). It would 
also appear that μεγαλοψυχία, which in Aristotle means high- 
mindedness, came to signify in later writers magnificence, as 
if it were synon. with μεγαλοπρέπεια. It is not, therefore, 
improbable that μακροθυμία, which is a later word than 
μεγαλοψυχία, was used in the sense of magnanimity. At the 
same time it is evident that in the New Test. μακροθυμία has 
always a tacit reference to difficulties, sorrows, injuries, wrong- 
doing. For this reason it is here said to be an attribute of 
of love. It differs, therefore, in several points from the 
“high-mindedness” of Aristotle’s Ethics: First, it is not a 
consciousness of greatness, but a largeness of conception. 
Second, it is not the loftiness of spirit that great men alone 
possess, but a moral and godly frame of mind to be exhibited 
in the life of every Christian. Third, it is not a noble pride 
that stands aloof, but an interested spectator of life’s suffer- 
ings, though not an active combatant in the strife. 
xpnateveras occurs here for the first time and only here in 
the New Test. Clem. Rom. borrows it (Ad Cor. 13). Origen 
(Cat.) paraphrases by γλυκύς πρὸς πάντας. Similarly Jerome 
(In Gul. v. 22): “ Benignitas sive suavitas, quia apud Grecos 
χρηστότης utramque sonat, virtus est lenis, blanda, tranquilla, 
et omnium bonorum apta consortio.” Its opposite is ἀποτομία, 
“sharpness,” “ severity ” (Rom. xi. 22). Χρηστότης supple- 


344 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ments μωκροθυμία, of which it is said by Clem. Rom. (ut sup.) 
to be the fruit (cf. Gal. v. 22), “ Long-suffering ” expresses 
the self-restraint of Christian love; “kindness”? expresses its 
self-abandonment. ‘The former regards the wrong-doer; the 
latter, the sufferer. The former represents the attitude of the 
Divine Government towards men under the Old Covenant; 
the latter tells us what God has done in the Gospel. The for- 
mer is the passive, the latter the active aspect of love. Tyndale’s 
rendering, “is corteous,” refers too exclusively to manner. 

ζηλοῖ. Envy is “dissatisfaction at the prosperity of an- 
other”? (Jon. Edwards). Cf. iii. 3; Gal. v.20. In its good 
meaning it is emulation, or the desire to be superior to another 
without any wish to injure him. 

meptrepeverat. The words πέρπερος, περπερεία, περπε- 
ρεύομαι are late Greek. Cf. Schol. on Soph., Ant. 334. Hence 
some have supposed they were formed from the old Latin 
perperus ; and the Vulg. has here “non agit perperam.” But 
perperam itself is probably connected with περά and originally 
denoted what, in a bad sense, is “‘ over and above measure.” 
The precise meaning of περπερεύομαι is doubtful. Origen 
(Cat.) explains it by προπετής. So also Chrys., Theod., 
‘Yheophyl., Gicum. make it to be synon. with προπετεύεται, 
“is hasty.” In the Catena Chrys. and Cicum. paraphrase it 
by ἀλαζονεύεται. The Scholiast (wt sup.) says πέρπερος is a 
later word for κομψός, “affected.” Hesychius explains περ- 
περεύομαι by κατεπαίρομαι, ‘to be arrogant ;”’ and to the 
same effect Tertullian (De Puatientit 12) has “ protervum 
sapit;”? and Theophylact, rather inconsistently, explains 
méptrepos by μετεωριζόμενος. Erasmus also renders it by 
procax. In Cicero (Ad Attic. I. 14, “ quomodo ἐνεπερπερευ- 
σάμην novo auditori Pompeio”’) it evidently refers to the 
manner and expression of one who sounds his own praises 
rather than to disposition. Similarly Clem. Alex. (Pwday. 
III. p. 251 Potter) and Basil (Iteg. Brev. Tract. 49) explain it 
by καλλωπισμός, “ ostentation.” Weight of authority is de- 
cidedly in favour of this interpretation. Render: ‘“ vaunteth 
not itself.” Cf. M. Anton. V. § 5, Gataker’s note. 

φυσιοῦται, “is not puffed up.” It denotes disposition, as 
περπερεύομαι denotes manner. Cf. note on iv. 6; viii. 1. 

V. 5. ἀσχημονεῖ, “doth not behave itself unseemly.” Cf. 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—XIII. 4-6. 345 


xiv. 40, where seemliness is prescribed in the conduct of public 
worship, and xi. 6-15, where an instance of unseemliness in 
the Church assembly is censured. The Apostle may have had 
an eye in the present passage also to Church worship. But 
what he says is a truth of wide application. Unseemliness 
of behaviour is the product of lust, and lust is fatal to love. 
God is love and light, infinite purity and infinite goodness. 
Holiness only can love. 

παροξύνεται, “is not provoked,” that is, to anger. It is 
synon. with παραπικραίνω. In the Old Test. the word is used 
of God. But such an application of it is alien to the moral 
tone of the New Test. It means the exasperation of anger. 
Love is long-suffering when it puts away anger, and is not 
exasperated even when anger is justly felt. The Apostle 
deprecates acerbity, but allows righteous resentment. His 
position differs from that of the Stoics, who condemned dis- 
pleasure even at wrong-doing. Cf. M. Anton. VI. 27. We 
have an instance of the Apostle being exasperated once (cf. 
Acts xxiii. 3). N 

ov λογίζεται TO κακόν, “ taketh not account of evil” (Rey. 
Vers.). Theodoret is perhaps the first to suggest this render- 
ing: συγγινώσκει τοῖς ἐπταισμένοις, οὐκ ἐπὶ κακῷ σκοπῷ 
ταῦτα γεγενῆσθαι ὑπολαμβάνων. Cf. Rom. iv. 3, 8; 2 Cor. v. 
19. ‘lwo other renderings have been proposed. (1) “ Does 
not suspect a person of having done evil till some proof 
compels belief.” But this, as Hammond observes, would 
probably be expressed by ἐνθυμεῖσθαι, as in Matt. ix. 4. (2) 
“Does not intend evil against a person.” Cf. Phil. iv. 8, 
where ταῦτα λογίζεσθε means, “ think on the way to attain 
these things.” But to say that love does not design another’s 
hurt is to utter a truism not worthy of the Apostle. Besides, 
he would then probably have written τὰ κακά. 

V. 6. χαίρει ἐπὶ τῇ ἀδικίᾳ, “ rejoiceth not at unrighteous- 
ness.” There is no malice (ἐπυχαιρεκακία) in love. The 
generic term’ is ζῆλος or φθόνος, the specific ἐπιχαιρεκακία. 
Malice is that form of envy which seeks another’s hurt. Cf. 
Plat., Phileb. p. 48, ὁ φθονῶν ye ἐπὶ κακοῖς τοῖς τῶν πέλας 
ἡδόμενος ἀναφανήσεται. 

ἀδικίᾳ, not ‘ injustice,” but “ unrighteousness” in the large 
sense of the word in the New Test. Cf. Rom. 1. 18 ; ii. 5. 


e 


346 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


συγχαίρει δὲ τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, “but rejoiceth with the truth.’* 
Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 10, 12, where, as here, ἀλήθεια and ἀδικία are 
contrasted. έν is omitted in the former clause, because the 
latter clause is virtually included in it. Not to rejoice at un- 
righteousness implies rejoicing in the truth (cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 7). 
By ‘‘the truth ” is here meant, not “ righteousness,” but “ the 
Gospel.” Cf. Test. Duod. Patr. p. 746, συγχαρήσονται αὐτῷ, 
that is, the Messiah. The Gospel is the truth of God, not so 
much because it is distinguished from the types of the Mosaic 
dispensation as because it is the absolute wisdom, the divine 
philosophy, of which all the efforts of the human intellect and 
all the partial lights that had broken from heaven were but 
the dawn. Cf. Gal. ii.5; Eph. i. 18; 3 John 3; all an echo 
of Christ’s words in John xiv. 6. This revelation of God 
bursts upon man with a fulness of joy. The Son Himself has 
been anointed with the oil of gladness above His fellows, and 
He appoints also unto the mourner beauty for ashes, the oil of 
joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heavi- 
ness. Abraham saw the day of Christ and was glad. It is 
the time of harvest, when he that soweth and he that reapeth 
rejoice together. The gladness of the early Church attracted 
the notice of the historian (cf. Acts ii. 46). We may con- 
jecture that it was her joy that created song and broke forth 
even in ecstatic utterance. Who is not struck with the 
contrast between this and the profound sadness of the later 
paganism of Greece and Rome? “Omnes agedum mortales 
circumspice,”? says Seneca, “larga ubique flendi et assidua 
materia; alium ad quotidianum opus laboriosa egestas vocat ; 
alium ambitio nunquam quieta solicitat; alius divitias qnas 
optaverat metuit . . . lLacrime nobis deerunt antequam 
cause dolendi” (Consol. ad Polyp. 23). A Christian Apostle 
alone can address to his readers without irony the exhortation 
πάντοτε χαίρετε (1 Thess. v. 16), In this hymn to love the 
Apostle personifies the Gospel and represents it as rejoicing. 
The truth rejoices in its power to create love; for, as Augus- 
tine says, the victory of truth is love. Then love created by 
the truth rejoices in the loveliness of the truth and rejoices 
with the truth in its love-creating energy. It is the joy of the 
shepherd when he has found the lost sheep; the joy of the 
father when the prodigal has returned; the joy of holy angels 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—XIII. 6, 7. 347 


and of God over one sinner that repenteth. Cf. Rom. vii. 22, 
συνήδομαι τῷ νόμῳ, where Law is personified and συν- ex- 
presses, as here, communion in joy. Cf. Phil. ii. 17, cvyyaipw 
πᾶσιν ὑμῖν. So Arist., Hth. Nic. IX. iv. 1, συγχαίροντα τῷ 
φίλῳ. The Apostle having personified Love, it is natural that 
he should also personify the Truth. Neander and others are, 
thercfore, wrong in their rendering: “ rejoiceth with others in 
the truth.” 

V. 7. στέγει means originally “ cover over,” whence tego ; 
then, “ contain as a vessel.” From this latter meaning two 
metaphorical uses of the word are derived, either of which 
may be here adopted: (1) that love hides or is silent about 
the faults of others; (2) that love bears without resentment 
injuries inflicted by others. Both meanings are classical, but 
the former more frequent in the poets than in prose. The 
latter alone occurs elsewhere in the New Test. (e.g. ix. 12) ; 
the former alone in LXX. (Sir. viii. 17 only). In our passage 
the former rendering, adopted by Hstius, Hammond, Bengel, 
makes no real difference between στέγει and οὐ λογίζεται, 
while the latter rendering, adopted by Chrys., Theod., Meyer, 
etc., seems to make στέγει synon. with ὑπομένει. But there 
will be this difference: ὑπομένειν means that the spirit is not 
crushed under the weight of heaviest affliction, whereas στέγειν 
expresses the self-restraint which checks the outbreak of un- 
controllable passion, whether of anger or of sorrow ; that is, 
ἐγκράτεια is an attribute of love. Cf. Barn., Hp. 11. 2, waxpo- 
θυμία καὶ ἐγκράτεια, where the latter word answers to the 
Apostle’s στέγει. Cf. Gal. v. 23; 2 Pet. i. 6. In ὑπομένειν 
the pressure, so to speak, is from without, in στέγειν from 
within. The former approximates to the ἀνέχου of the Stoics, 
the latter to their ἀπέχου. Hence in 1 Pet. ii. 20 ὑπομένειν 
is used as synon. with ὑποφέρειν. Plato explains ἀκόλαστον 
by οὐ στεγανόν, and draws out the figure at length: τὴν δὲ 
ψυχὴν κοσκίνῳ ἀπείκασε THY τῶν ἀνοήτων ὡς τετρημένην, ἅτε 
οὐ δυναμένην στέγειν δι’ ἀπιστίαν τε καὶ λήθην (Θυγᾳ. p. 499). 

πιστεύει. In Lib. de Spir. et Lit. 82 Augustine explains it 
of belief of God’s words, in Conf. X. 3 he says it means a dis- 
position to believe the best of all men. Both are included. 
Trust in its higher forms is the result of love, and all love 
springs from simplest faith. 


343 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ἐλπίζει, that is, love hopes even when it cannot find ground 
for faith. 

ὑπομένει, that is, love endures even when it fails to hope. 

Vv. 8-12. Christian love abides for ever; the Charismata 
are for a time only. The thought is suggested to the Apostle 
by the word “endure.”” Love is imperishable in its nature by 
reason of its moral strength to endure hardships. It survives 
and exhausts all wrongs. Moral endurance is indeed the lead- 
ing thought in all the previous enumeration of the attributes 
of love. But from the thought that love abides because it 
endures the Apostle rises to the conception of its abiding 
because it is the perfection of character. The moral perfection 
of love, as of any other form of goodness, pictures itself to our 
minds under the conception of its eternal duration. 

V. 8. Ὁ has ἐκπίπτει. But δὲ ABC have πίπτει. So 
Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. The latter reading 
conveys a more general notion, that of falling to the ground. 
The former reading gives the more vivid meaning. It ex- 
presses the notion of falling off, like a leaf (LXX. Job xiii. 25) 
or a flower (James i. 2; 1 Pet. i. 24). Cf. διαπεσεῖται, LXX. 
Judith vi. 9 ; “ tanquam flosculi decidunt ” (Cic.). Love, which 
is the fulfilling of the law, is like the law itself, no tittle of 
which will ever fall (πεσεῖν, Luke xvi. 17). 

προφητεῖαι . . . γλῶσσαι. .. γνῶσις. He selects for 
special mention the gift which he considers to be worthiest, 
prophecy, and the gifts on which the Corinthians prided them- 
selves, tongues and knowledge. A reads γνώσεις, an attempt 
to assimilate the word to the previous plurals. 

καταργηθήσεται. Cf. note on i. 28. Here, however, the 
word means, not (as Grotius, Heinrici) “ to destroy the efficacy 
and use,” but “to biing the thing itself to an end.” In ver. 2 
the Apostle has said that prophecy, tongues, and knowledge 
have no moral worth without love. Here he adds that though 
they may be informed with love, yet even then they will cease, 
and the love which survives will find for itself other vehicles 
of expression. They will be brought to an end by an act of 
Divine power. 

προφητείας, plur. One gift unfolds into many gifts of the 
same kind. 

γλῶσσαι παύσονται. Many expositors suppose this to mean 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—xIII. 7-11. 349 


that the curse of Babel will be removed and all diversities of 
language cease at the coming of Christ. But the meaning 
surely is that the Charisma of ecstatic utterance will cease. 

Vv. 9,10. The temporary character of the Charismata 15 
proved by their essentially partial nature. He omits to men- 
tion the gift of tongues, not perhaps because it needs no proof 
(Meyer), but because it is not capable of proof from the partial 
nature of the gift. To say “that we utter with tongues in 
part ”’ is really unmeaning. LHcstatic utterance is not an im- 
perfect stage, capable of being developed into higher forms. 
It is not, like prophecy and knowledge, part of an intelligently 
connected whole, but is individual and momentary. It will, 
therefore, cease, not because it has been absorbed in some- 
thing better, but as sounds which have no music in them die 
away in the air and do not live in ideas. Knowledge, on 
the other hand, and prophecy are a partial and imperfect 
condition of Christian wisdom and revelation. In what sense 
knowledge is partial we are told in the following verses. 

ἐκ μέρους, “in part,” “imperfectly.” Cf. note on xii. 27. 
It means the immature and undeveloped, in contrast to τέλειον. 
Cf. ὁ νήπιος, ver. 11. 

τὸ τέλειον, “ the fully developed ;”’ not merely perfect know- 
ledge. but generally “the perfect state of things.” Maier 
and Evans well observe that ἔλθῃ contains an allusion 
to the second coming of Christ. The parousia will bring 
with it all that is perfect. The course of history is a pro- 
gress towards perfection in so far as it marches onwards to 
the Advent. 

V.11. The cessation of what is partial in the spiritual de- 
velopment of a Christian is compared to the transition from 
childhood to manhood. Cf. Gal. iv. 1, where the same metaphor 
describes the various stages in the history of the Church. 
It occurs in many other writers. Cf. Xen., Cyr. VIII. 7; 
Hor., Hp. II. i. 99; Seneca, Hy. XXVII., “ pudebat eadem 
velle quae volueras puer.” It is here suggested by the word 
τέλειον. ὃ 

ἐλάλουν κι τι. Theophyl., Bengel, Olshausen, Heinrici 
Suppose ἐλάλουν to be an allusion to the gift of tongues, 
ἐφρόνουν to the gift of prophecy, and ἐλογιζόμην to the gift 
of knowledge. ‘This seems forced in reference to ἐφρόνουν, 


350 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


which is more closely connected with knowledge than with 
prophecy. But it is difficult not to admit that ἐλάλουν is a 
covert allusion to γλῶσσαι. The three expressions ἐλάλουν, 
ἐφρόνουν, ἐλογιζόμην seem to me to refer to successive 
stages in the mental growth of a child, and νήπιος will in- 
clude them all. This will account for the thrice-repeated 
νήπιος. The first stage is that in which the child babbles 
and is slowly learning articulate speech. If there is an allu- 
sion to the gift of tongues, we have here an additional proof 
that this gift consisted in ecstatic utterance. The child 
enters on the second stage when it learns to think, that is, 
to form general notions. ‘I ymagened” is Tyndale’s ren- 
dering. Hammond, Meyer and others explain φρονεῖν not 
of thought so much as emotion and endeavour. Rev. Vers.. 
has “felt.” But φρονεῖν is not the generic name for emo- 
tion, though it is used for what includes emotion as well as 
thought. It seems to be used here in the general meaning 
of “thinking.” “TI had the mind of a child.” Cf. Arist., 
11. Nic. Tl. vi. 10, τὸ φρονεῖν καὶ ὁρᾶν. The third stage in 
the mental history of a child is reasoning. From its general 
notions it draws inferences. Perhaps ἐλάλουν alludes to 
tongues and prophecy, ἐφρόνουν and ἐλογιζόμην in a general 
way to the intellectual gift of γνῶσις. 

ὅτε δὲ γέγονα, “ now that 1am become a man.” The perf. 
with ὅτε is rare, but it means “ever since,” ew quo. Cf. 
Ilom., 11]. xxi. 156, ὅτ᾽ és ἼΛιον εἰλήλουθα. 

καταργεῖν. Cf. ver. 10. It means, not only that the man 
lays aside the things of the child, but also that he has brought 
that period of life toa close. The words τὰ τοῦ νηπίου will 
include something more than τὰ ἐν παισὶ νομιζόμενα (Xen., 
Cyr. VIII. vii. 8). The rendering in Cranmer’s Bible is 
practically correct: “ childishness.” ; 

V.12, Another illustration of the change from partial to 
perfect. ‘The partial is like looking at a reflection m a 
mirror, the perfect is like seeing the thing itself. The former 
verse refers to the difference between the present and the 
future capacity of the Christian to understand spiritual things. 
Now the Apostle speaks, not of the organ of knowledge 
(Neander), but of the difference between the present and the 
future revelations themselves. The object of which we see the 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—xXIII. 12. 351 


reflection is God (cf. 2 Cor. iii. 18). The mirror is everything 
that reveals God in the present state of existence, such as the 
visible creation (Rom. i. 20) and the life of Jesus Christ on 
earth, so far as it is unconnected with His glorified life in 
heaven (cf. 2 Cor. v.16), and even the Gospel itself. St. John 
speaks of the earthly life of Jesus as the manifestation of the 
Father through the Word; but St. Paul regards it rather as 
the self-emptying of the Son. Cf. John i. 14; Phil. 11. 6, 7. 
Both, however, speak of Christ’s second coming as a φανέ- 
pwots of what is now hidden. Cf. 1 John ii. 28. Even the 
exaltation of Christ to the right hand of the majesty was 
a hiding of Christ in God. Cf. Col. in. 3. What we now 
see is, therefore, a reflection of Christ in the mirror of His 
human life. 

The Apostle probably borrowed the metaphor from Philo, 
who says of Reason that it forms an image of God. Cf. Ve 
Decal. p. 198, ὡς yap Sia κατόπτρου φαντασιοῦται ὁ νοῦς 
θεὸν δρῶντα καὶ κοσμοποιοῦντα. Philo borrowed it from 
Plato. Indeed the whole of the Apostle’s conception may be 
compared with the description given by Plato of the gradual 
development of the faculty that gazes at truth. At first the 
eye sees the shadows best, next the reflections of objects in 
the water, then the objects themselves, next the light of 
moon and stars, and at length he will be able to look at the 
sun, and not mere reflections of him in the water, but the sun 
as he is in his own proper place (cf. Rep. VII. p. 516). But, 
while the philosopher connects the beatific vision with the 
ideas, the Apostle finds it realized only at the second coming 
of Christ. 

ἄρτι, “now,” usually as distinguished from the past, but 
also, as here and 1 Pet. i. 6, from the future. It expresses a 
nomentary present, the αἰών that is now being but a moment 
compared with the world to come. 

διά, not ἐν, because the image appears to be behind the 
mirror. 

ἔσοπτρον, never εἴσοπτρον, though the word is formed from 
εἰς, ὄπ-. It is synon. with κάτοπτρον, a mirror of polished 
metal, bronze or silver, for the manufacture of which Corinth 
was famous. Glass mirrors, covered at the back with lead 
or quicksilver, are first mentioned in the thirteenth century. 


352 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Cf. Beckmann, History of Inventions, Eng. trans., Vol. II. p. 
76 Bohn. Pliny, N.H. XXXVI. 26, does not bear out the 
contrary statement. The explanation of Mosheim, Rickert, 
etc., that the reference is to a window made of horn or isin- 
glass-stone, is as ancient as Tertullian (De An. 53, “ velut per 
corneum specular obsoletior lux”). But he has the other in- 
terpretation in Adv. Prax. 16, “in imagine et speculo et enig- 
mate.’ The Rabbis (cf. Wetstein, in loc.) represent Moses as 
looking at the glory of God through a transparent window, 
but the prophets through a translucent one. But ἔσοπτρον 
always means “mirror,” never “window” (οἱ λίθοι οἱ 
διαυγοῖ). 

ἐν αἰνίγματι, not synon. with αἰνυγμωτικῶς, “darkly” 
(Auth. and Rev. Versions), but “in a riddle;” that is, the 
phrase denotes, not the dimness of our vision, but the ob- 
scurity of the revelation. The ἐν carries on the metaphor of 
the mirror. Perhaps he has Num. xii. 8 in his mind, ἐν etdee 
καὶ ov δι’ αἰνυγμάτων. Cf. viii. 2. The thought must be con- 
nected with ii. 75, The Gospel is a revelation of God, but not 
a full revelation. It is indeed ἐν μυστηρίῳ, but it is also 
ἐν αἰνίγματι. To borrow Leibnitz’ distinction (Meditationes de 
Cognitfone, etc., Hd. Erdm., p. 79), our knowledge of God in 
the present life is symbolical; but when Christ appears, it 
will be intuitive. The reason is that it will be an immediate 
knowledge of Christ Himself at His coming. The distinction 
here drawn between present γνῶσις and future εἶδος is the 
same as the distinction in 2 Cor. v. 7 between πίστις and 
εἶδος. The knowledge of which he now speaks is Christian 
knowledge, and that knowledge begins in faith. 

πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον, “face to face;” a Hebraism, it is 
true, but admirably adapted to express the Apostle’s notion 
that all perfect knowledge of God comes through personal 
fellowship with Christ at His appearing. Cf. 2 John 12. | 

ἐπυγνώσομαι, “TI shall know fully.” The ἐπι- expresses 
perfect knowledge, either because full knowledge is the result 
of continual additions to previous knowledge (cf. ἐπαυξάνειν, 
ἐπιβάλλειν, etc.), or because it is attained by applying the. 
mind to a subject. Cf. Delitazsch on Heb. x. 26, and his Bubl. 
Psych. p. 847. ὁ 

Aquinas says that knowing God as we are known means 


~ 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—XIII. 12, 13. fifo} 


knowing His essence; and Sir W. Hamilton (Lectwres, Vol. II. 
p. 375) cites the Apostle’s words in support of his doctrine 
that the infinite is incognisable. But the words have nothing 
to do with these problems. For surely the relativity of 
knowledge, if true now and here, must be a fact always and 
everywhere to a finite mind. 

καθὼς καί, that is, he will know in the same way in which 
he was known, immediately, intuitively, and no longer ten- 
tatively and symbolically, as if he were solving a riddle. Cf. 
note on iv. 7. 

ἐπεγνώσθην. Beza, Wolf, Bengel and others adopt the 
hophal construction: “ prout factus fuero cognoscere,” as if 
ἐπεγνώσθην were synon. with ἐδιδάχθην. But the construc- 
tion is not Greek. Cf. note on viii. 3. Some expositors think 
the aor. is equivalent to a fut. and explain the reference to be 
to the knowledge which the saints will have one of another. 
But this again is not Greek. The Rev. Vers. changes the 
pres. of the Auth. Vers. (“am known”) into a perf. (‘have 
been known’’). It 15 better to render it as a pure aor., ‘‘ was 
known.” ‘The Apostle places himself in the future, when the 
perfect will have come, and regards our present condition as 
past. Even now he that loves God is known of Him. But 
‘ when the perfect is come at the advent of Christ, then the 
Christian will know God intuitively and directly, even as he 
was before known of God. 

V. 18. Of ever-abiding moral excellences love is the 
greatest. The superiority of love over prophecy and know- 
ledge is represented in the eternal duration of love. This: 
suggests to the Apostle the other two eternal graces of faith: 
and hope. The Apostle reaches the climax of his panegyric. 
by saying that love surpasses in excellence even those moral 
graces which abide for ever. Nuvi δέ has, therefore, a logical 
force, not indeed in an adversative sense (atqui, Grot.), but 
introducing an inference: “and so we see,” nunc autem. The 
δέ is no objection, as if οὖν alone would be used (Neander) to 
express a logical connection. Cf. note on xii. 8. 

This appears to have been the earliest interpretation of the 
verse. It was held by Irenzeus (Adv. Heer. 11. 28 (47), 3) and 
Tertullian (De Patientid 12). But Chrys., who was followed 
by Theod. and Gicum. (not, however, by Photius), propounded: 

AA 


354 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


what has become the well-nigh universally adopted view, that 
νυνί is temporal, that faith and hope will cease, and that the 
superiority of love consists in its surviving every catastrophe. 
In addition to what has been said above, the following con- 
siderations are in favour of the other view. first, if faith and 
hope will cease, there is no reason why the Apostle should not 
have mentioned other graces also, which will cease, such as 
temperance and the other self-regarding virtues. The words 
“these three” definitely limit the reference of the word 
“abide”? to faith, hope and love. Second, it is unnatural to 
understand péves relatively in reference to faith and hope, but 
absolutely in reference to love. The Apostle would have 
explicitly stated concerning love that its superiority consists 
in its abiding for ever and that the other graces do not abide. 
Third, the other gifts of the Spirit are represented as con- 
tinuing in the Church till the parousia; so that, if faith and 
hope then cease, they differ in no respect from prophecy and 
knowledge. Fourth, Chrysostom argues from the nature of 
faith and hope that they will cease, and cites Rom. vii. 24 
and Heb. xi. 1 in proof. Others add 2 Cor. v. 7. We should 
rather say the present passage supplements these. We now 
walk by faith, not at all by sight. Our present faith is 
the result of hearing the message concerning Christ. Cf. 
Gal. iii. 2, ἐξ ἀκοῆς πίστεως. When Christ appears, we 
shall walk by faith because by sight. All fellowship between 
‘one person and another must be through faith, if faith is 
rightly understood. Chrysostom was led to deny the need of 
faith in heaven by his definition of faith. If it is an act of 
the intellect (διάνοια), which believes certain promises on the 
ground of its belief concerning the promiser, then faith ceases 
when the promises are fulfilled, and this is Chrysostom’s 
motion of the nature of faith. Cf. Hom. 36 in Gen. xv.: ἐκεῖνο 
'τοίνυν ἐστὶ πίστις ὅταν ἐκείνοις πιστεύωμεν τοῖς μῆ βλεπομέ- - 
vows, πρὸς τὴν ἀξιοπιστίαν τοῦ ἐπωγγειλαμένου τὴν διάνοιαν 
τείναντες. Nor can it be denied that the word is used in this 
‘sense in the New Test. But the theological grace of faith is 
rouch more than the assent of the intellect. The Reformers 
‘strenuously insisted on the inclusion of “fiducia” in their 
definition of “ fides.” Cf. Conf. Augs. XX. 18; Apol. Conf. 11. 
53, where it is said that faith is not “notitia,” but “ velle 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—xXIII. 13. 355 


et accipere oblatam promissionem remissionis peccatorum et 
justificationis.” Similarly the Calvinists, Second Helv. Conf. 
XVI. It includes trust, the clinging of the heart to God and 
to a living, personal Christ. The Reformers transferred the 
fulcrum of the spiritual life from the intellect to the will. So 
also with reference to hope. The notion of an eternal pro- 
gress is not inconsistent with perfection. On the contrary, it 
is essential to the perfection of man. But as long as progress 
is possible, hope has not ceased. 

τὰ τρία ταῦτα, “these three” and none else. These, from 
the nature of things, are the only graces that abide for ever. 
For they are what the older theologians (e.g., Aquinas, etc.) 
have designated the theological virtues; that is, they have for 
their object God as revealed in Christ. Moral goodness is 
divided into several virtues or graces in so far only as it acts 
on a different object. When lic object disappears, the virtue 
that edeet upon it ceases. Now faith, hope and love are the 
graces that act immediately upon God. Compassion reaches 
Him mediately only, through the misery of God-loved creatures, 
Our justice acts upon Him indirectly, as we are placed in the 
society of our fellows. But the object of faith is the eternally 
present revelation which God gives us of Himself in Christ, 
and the object of hope is the ever future revelation and the 
unexhausted fulness of God’s promises, and the object of love 
is the infinite beauty of His goodness. Because these things 
are eternal, faith, hope and love abide for ever. | 

μείζων δὲ τούτων ἡ ἀγάπη. Winer (Gr. ὃ XXXV. 3) and 
Buttmann (N.S. p. 79) deny the occurrence of the compara- 
tive in the sense of the superlative. They are, no doubt, 
right; though the superlative expresses the notion intended 
as correctly as it can be expressed in English. Strictly 
speaking ἡ ἀγάπη at the end of the verse is not the ἀγάπη 
of the preceding clause. The latter is the sentiment generally. 
The former is that special form of the sentiment which Christ- 
ianity producés and leads to perfection. This love is greater 
than faith, greater than hope, greater even than love itself in 
every other form or manifestation. 

In what respect love is greater than all graces the Anonilh 
does not tell us. Hints may be discovered in the chapter. 
For instance, love is not merely human or angelic, but is the 


356 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


highest attribute of God Himself; and love it is that exercises, 
in their higher forms, the graces of faith and hope. A lower 
form of faith in Christ is possible without love. This is the 
justifying faith, which consists, not in a delight in God’s per- 
fections, but in an “ apprehensio meritorum Christi.” A lower 
form of hope also precedes love,—the hope of safety and of 
happiness. But peaceful trust in the Heavenly Father and 
fellowship with Him in holiness spring from love. Hope also 
maketh not ashamed when the love of God is shed abroad 
in a corresponding love in our hearts. Cf. Rom. v. 5. Again, 
love is superior to faith and hope because it is the perfection 
of all moral goodness (vv. 4-7). There is indeed a nexus 
between faith in Christ and holiness. But faith is not a germ 
of holiness. Love, on the other hand, is holiness both in germ 
and in its perfect development. But St. Paul only opens the 
door. ‘To enter was reserved for St. John. 


C. Superiority of Prophecy over Tongues. 
(xiv. ]-40). 


The lyric strains of the beautiful hymn to love have scarcely 
died away when the Apostle descends again to argument and 
practical exhortation in reference to the spiritual gifts. A 
vivid realization of the supreme excellence of love has pre- 
pared the reader to accept the doctrine of the present chapter 
that the showy gift of tongues,.on which the Corinthians 
plumed themselves, is inferior to the useful gift of prophecy. 

V.1. διώκετε, ‘ pursue,” asin 1 Thess. v.15; 1 Pet. iu. 11, 
where διώκειν is stronger than ζητεῖν. Cf. Plato, Gorg. p. 507, 


οὔτε διώκειν οὔτε φεύγειν ἃ μὴ προσήκει. In our passage 


ζηλοῦν is not weaker than διώκειν. The Apostle does not 
mean that for the Charismata we can only pray. The idea, 
however, is somewhat different in the two words. Love is to 
be chased with all eagerness for its own sake; but the Charis- 
mata are objects of emulation. To strive to excel others in 
Christian love will not increase our love, but to seek emulously 
to excel others in gifts useful to the Church is praiseworthy, if 
the emulation has no tinge of envy. . 

There is no particle connecting the verse with what pre- 
cedes, because the Apostle is making a new start and, at the 


eee 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—XIII. 13—xtrv. 2. 357 


outset, briefly states the sum and purpose of his digression. 
As, therefore, διώκετε τὴν ἀγάπην stands at the head of a new 
section, not at the end of a former one, the δέ after ζηλοῦτε is 
not simply resumptive of xu. 31 (Stanley), but adversative. 
Chrys. and De Wette explain the antithesis excellently: 
“The Corinthians must not infer from the praise so richly 
heaped on love that the Charismata are of no value; on the 
contrary, while they ought to pursue the former, let them 

strive also for excellence in the latter.’ The praise of love 
has risen beyond its excellence as the best way to attain and 
use the Charismata. The Apostle now returns to his former 
subject, the necessity in the Church for such Charismata when 
sanctified by love. 

τὰ πνευματικά. Cf. note on xii. 1. 

μᾶλλον, not a comparative in the sense of a superlative. 
It means, “more than the other gifts.” Before iva mentally 
supply ζηλοῦτε. 

Vv. 2-6. The gift of tongues is inferior to the gift of 
prophecy because it does not edify the Church. 

V.2. The proof is that he who utters with tongues speaks 
ouly to God; for no man understands him, 

ἀκούει, not “hears him” (Wieseler, who infers that utter- 
ance with tongues was in a whisper; cf. note on xu. 10), but 
“understands what he hears.” It means τὴν δι᾿ ὦτων ἔννοιαν. 
So in class. Greek and freq. in LXX. (Gen. xi. 7; Is. xxxvi. 
11) and New Test. (Mark iv. 33). 

οὐδείς, except, that is, when one that has the gift of inter- 
pretation is present. 

πνεύματι. From ver. 15, where πνεῦμα is contrasted with 
vovs, we infer that it here signifies, not the Holy Spirit, 
but the man’s spirit, in so far as it is under the influence of 
the Spirit of God. Πνεύματι may be dat. of instrument or of 
place. 

μυστήρια is generally understood in the modern sense of 
“ mystery,” a truth to us incomprehensible. But there is no 
reason why it should not here also have its usual meaning of 
“vevealed truth.” Hence δέ has its limitative sense (as in 
ii. 6, σοφίαν δέ), not introducing a climax (as in Acts xii. 9; 
Heb. xii. 6); that is, the clause does not mean, “nay, rather, 
on the contrary, it is in his own spirit that he utters, though 


358 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


then indeed he utters profound and incomprehensible truths;” 
it means, ‘‘though I admit that in his own spirit he gives 
utterance to revealed truths.” 

V. 8. ὁ δὲ προφητεύων. He does not say ὁ προφήτης (as 
in ver. 29), that the one participle may balance the other. 

ἀνθρώποις, emphatic. The teacher speaks to men as such, 
in their need of edification and encouragement. . 

οἰκοδομήν, παράκλησιν, and παραμυθίαν are proleptic 
accusatives: “ad eedificationem,” Vulg. The opposite of 
οἰκοδομή is καθαίρεσις (2 Cor. x. 3). To “build up” is to 
produce a certain objective character. ‘ Exhortation”’ and 
“consolation” evoke certain feelings which spring out of 
that moral condition. Originally παράκλησις and παραμυθία 
have the same meaning, “ incentive,” “ encouragement,” and 
sometimes also the same secondary meaning, “ consolation,” 
“comfort.” Cf. John xi. 19; 2 Cor. νι]. 17. The Rev. Vers. 
has “comfort and consolation.” But the other meaning is 
much more natural here and in Phil. ii. 1; 2 Thess. ii. 16. 
The notion of affliction does not belong to the train of thought 
in any of these places. Παράκλησις means the incentive of 
exhortation. and argument; παραμυθία, the encouragement 
of sympathy and example. Cf. 1 Thess. v. 14, “encourage 
(παραμυθεῖσθε) the feeble-minded,” who are influenced more 
by kindness than by argument. So “the encouragement sup- 
plied by love” in Phil. 11. 1 is παραμύθιον. On the other 
hand, ἡ παράκλησις τῶν γραφῶν. (Rom. xv. 4), ὁ λόγος τῆς 
παρακλήσεως (Heb. xiii. 22); and παράκλησις, ποῦ παραμύθια, 
became the designation of public teaching in the Church 
assemblies. Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 13. 

V. 4. ἑαυτὸν οἰκοδομεῖ. He who utters with tongues builds 
up his own spiritual character by the exercise of his gift, 
though he does not himself understand what he utters. He 
edifies himself ecstatically, but does not present incentives 
and encouragements to his own mind or to the minds of 
his hearers. The prophet edifies the Church by incentives 
addressed to the hearer’s reason. 

ἐκκλησίαν is anarthrous, in order to emphasize the notion 
of “Church” by omission of any particular definition. Cf. 
Jelf, Gr. ὃ 447, Obs. 8. It means the universal Church as 
it is represented by a particular congregation of Christians. 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—xIV. 2-6. 359) 


Cf. ver. 19, ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, and Heb.i. 1, ἐν vid (in one who 
is Son’’). 

V. 5. “I do not depreciate the gift of tongues from 
jealousy ; yea, I wish you a better gift, that of prophecy.” 

μείζων δέ. SoNAB. C deficit. Dreads yap. The more 
difficult reading is δέ. It must mean, ‘‘ nay moreover ;” that 
is, “I prefer your having the gift of prophecy, nay, prophecy 
is itself a greater gift than tongues.” Cf. note on xii. 31. 

ἐκτὸς εἰ μή. Canon Evans’s remark that ἐκτός is general, 
εἰ μή specific, is excellent. But it does not prove that the 
phrase is not a mixture of two exceptive formule, ἐκτὸς εἰ and 
εἰ μή. Similarly we have χωρὶς εἰ μή, πλὴν εἰ μή. 

διερμηνεύῃς. D has διερμηνεύων. On εἰ with conjunctive 
cf. note on ix. 11. . 

V. 6. Application of what has been said to the Apostle’s 
own case. 

νῦν δέ, not temporary (Hofm.), but logical, introducing an 
instance to which the general truth just stated is applicable. 
Cf. John vii. 40. 

ἀδελφοί, a personal address occasioned by the Apostle’s 
intention to refer to himself. Man is grappling with man. 
The reference is not a mere rhetorical individualising of the 
statement in vv. 11, 14 (De Wette, etc.), but an allusion to 
the Apostle’s intended visit to Corinth. The words αὐτὸς ἐγώ 
are not required, becavse the emphasis is on ἔλθω. Cf. note 
on iv. 19. 

ἐὰν μὴ κ. τ. λ., that is, “unless the utterance take the form 
of a revelation,’ etc. The second protasis is part of the 
apodosis of the first protasis. Hvans objects that, in that 
case, cai would be inserted before λαλήσω. But the Apostle 
does not, I think, mean that utterance with tongues would 
not, in any case, benefit the brethren and that a useful Charism 
must, therefore, be added toa brilliant one. He is speaking 
of an addition that would make the brilliant Charism itself 
useful. He supposes himself at Corinth exercising the gift of 
tongues, with which he was more richly endowed than most 
men, and shows how profitless to the Church it would be, 
unless he were aiso an interpreter of his own utterance, so as 
to transform it into a revelation or into knowledge. A man’s 
spirit may, even in a state of ecstasy, receive a revelation, 


800 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


which, when interpreted, becomes a prophecy; or the ecstasy 
may quicken the action of thought and lead to knowledge, 
which may be taught as a doctrine. 

ἐν, “in the form of.” Cf. note on ii. 7. 

ἀποκαλύψει . . . διδαχῇ. Calvin, Cor. a Lap., Hstius, 
Bengel, Meyer, De Wette, etc., rightly classify these four in 
two pairs. Revelation is the source of prophecy (cf. note on 
xii. 10); knowledge is the source of doctrine (cf. xii. 8). Of. 
vv. 29-31; Eph. iv. 11. 

Vv. 7-9, Illustrations from musical instruments to prove 
the uselessness of the gift of tongues without interpretation. 

ὅμως never means “moreover” (Grot., Wolf, etc.), nor is 
it synon. with ὁμῶς (Wetstein, ete.). but always means “and 
yet,” attamen. Chrys., Theophy]., Gicum., Hofmann think it 
refers to a καίπερ understood with ἄψυχα: ‘though they are 
inanimate things, yet even they,” etc. So Rev. Vers.: “even 
things without life.” But we should then expect ὅμως ἄψυχα 
[v.e. ὄντα] τὰ φωνὴν διδόντα. The transposition of ὅμως, when 
it properly belongs to the verb, occurs only with predicative 
participles or words and phrases that are tantamount to pre- 
dicative par‘iciples. So in Gal. iii. 15, ὅμως ἀνθρώπον κεκυ- 
ρωμένην διαθήκην, “though it be a man’s covenant, yet,” ete. 
Cf. Ellendt, Lew. Soph. s.v. ὅμως, 2; Ast, Lew. Plat. s.v.; 
Stallbaum’s note to Plat., Phileb. p. 91, ὅμως. . . κάλλιον 
ὄν. Winer (Gr. § XLV. 2 b), Buttmann (N.S. p. 264), Grimm 
(Lrx. s.v.) and Meyer consider ὅμως to be correlative to the 
καίπερ to be supplied with διδόντα, “things without life, 
though they give a sound, yet,” etc. But in this case we 
shonld expect τὰ ἄψυχα ὅμως φωνὴν διδόντα. Of. Jelf, Gr. 
§ 697d. Besides, this makes the contrast between the facts 
that the instruments give a sound and yet give no distinction 
of notes needlessly emphatic. The words φωνὴν διδόντα serve 
merely to specify the kind of manimate thing meant. There 
is emphasis on ta ἄψυχα. Otherwise the Apostle might have 
begun with εἴτε αὐλός and omitted from τά to διδόντα. Neither 
explanation is quite satisfactory. May we not suppose that 
ὅμως has reference to the answer which the Apostle imagines. 
the reader to make to his previous question? ‘Do you reply 
that the gift of tongues is choiceworthy and profitable without 
revelation or knowledge? And yet, though this is your opinion, 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—xXIV. 7-9. 361 


you must admit that if things without life, supposing them to 
emit sound, give no distinction of note, no one will know what 
is played.” Cf. John xii, 42, ὅμως μέντοι, “though Isaiah 
said so, yet,” etc. The force of the argument will still be 
what Chrys. says: “If things without life, supposing them to 
emit a sound, are useless, unless they are guided by reason to 
give a distinction of sounds, much more may we expect this 
to be true of men, whose prerogative is reason.” 

φωνή, though it properly means “a voice,” including the 
cries of animals (cf. Arist., Pol. I. 2), is sometimes used of 
the sounds emitted by things without life (cf. Matt. xxiv. 31 ; 
John iii. 8). So also φθόγγος is used in both meanings. 
When distinguished or, as here, applied to musical instru- 
ments, φωνή is “the one and yet infinite”? sound, φθόγγος 
is the same sound when broken up into distinct parts. Cf. 
Plat., Fhileb. p. 17, gov . . . pia διὰ TOD otopatos 
ἴουσα καὶ ἄπειρος av πλήθει, and Tin. 80, ὅσοι φθόγγοι ταχεῖς 
καὶ βραδεῖς, ὀξεῖς τε καὶ βαρεῖς φαίνονται. So M. Anton. 
ΧΙ. 2, ἐὰν τὴν μὲν ἐμμελῆ φωνὴν καταμερίσῃς εἰς ἕκαστον τῶν 
φθόγγων. The opposite οὗ φωνή is σιγή, the opposite of 
φθόγγος is διάστημα. 

αὐλός, pipe”; κιθάρα, “harp.” The former is the generic 
name of the various kinds of flutes (tibiw), Dorian, Lydian, 
Phrygian, etc. ; the latter is the generic name of all stringed 
instruments (fides), though it is distinguished, in a narrower 
sense, as the small guitar from the φόρμυγξ or seven-stringed. 
instrument of Terpander, and the λύρα or harp with large 
hollow shell. Cf. Boeck, De Metris Pindart III. xi. Wetstein 
cites Lucian, De Salt. 16, ἐν αὐλῷ καὶ κιθάρᾳ. 

διαστολήν, apparently used, not for a musical “ pause ” 
(Lidd. and Scott), but as synon. with διάστημα, a musical “ in- 
terval,” that is, the difference in pitch between two sounds. 
Cf. Gicum., παραλλαγὴν καὶ ἐναλλαγὴν μέλους. Harmony 
consists in distinction of sounds and distinction of pitch. Cf. 
Plat., Phileb. p. 17, ἐπειδὰν λάβης τὰ διαστήματα ὁπόσα ἐστὶ 
τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῆς φωνῆς ὀξύτητός τε πέρι καὶ βαρύτητος. καὶ 
ὁποῖα, καὶ τοὺς ὅρους τῶν διαστημάτων, καὶ τὰ ἐκ τούτων ὅσα 
συστήμωτα γέγονεν, ἃ κατιδόντες οἱ πρόσθεν παρέδοσαν ἡμῖν 
τοῖς ἑπομένοις ἐκείνοις καλεῖν αὐτὰ ἁρμονίας κ. τ. λ., and 


Euclid, Int. Harm. p. 1 (cited in Smith’s Dict. of Antiquities, 


902 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


s.v. Music), ἡρμοσμένον δὲ ἐστι τὸ ἐκ φθόγγων καὶ διαστη- 
μάτων. 

τοῖς φθόγγοις, “to the distinctive sounds;” a pure dative 
after δῶ, not instrumental: ‘If they do not apply intervals 
to the sounds ;” that is, there must be distinction of pitch as 
well as of sound. 

τὸ avAovmevoy, not the instrument (Riickert), but the tune, 
as is clear from τὸ λαλούμενον. Cf. Arist., De Musica p. 1144 
D (cited by Wetstein), τὸ ἀδόμενον ἢ αὐλούμενον ἢ κιθαριζό- 
μενον. 

V.8. The same thing is true of the trumpet even (καὶ 
yap), which is not in the proper sense an instrument of music ; 
for it has no keys or holes, like the flute, much less the 
sensitiveness that makes a stringed instrument seem to be 
almost a living thing. ‘The trumpet was never an accompani- 
ment in the συναυλία, as the flute and harp were. Yet this 
simple instrument is used to summon troops and rouse their 
courage. Its blasts become significant in consequence of a 
mutual understanding between the commander and his men. 
If the sound is uncertain, that is, if the meaning of the call 
is not previously agreed upon and understood, the trumpet is 
useless. 

πόλεμον, “ battle,’ as in Heb. xi. 34; Rev. ix.7,9. Itis 
another example of a Homeric usage either resuscitated in 
later Greek or surviving as a provincialism. 

V.9. γλῶσσα is understood of the tongue by Mosheim, 
Meyer, Osiander, Alford, Heinrici, Evans; the distinction 
supposed to be intended being between the tones of musical 
instruments and the living voice. Theophyl., Hstius, De 
Wette understand it of the gift of uttering with tongues. 
The emphatic «ai ὑμεῖς, repeated in ver. 12, favours this view 
and it is in accordance with the meaning we attached to ver. 
6. Cf. ver. 19, ἐν yAwoon. The dua γλώσσης of this verse is 
in contrast to the διὰ νοός of ver. 19. 

εὔσημον" εὔδηλον, φανερόν, Hesych. It includes more than 


onpavtixos. Hvery λόγος is “ significant ;” it ought to be. 


also ‘‘ easy (ev-) to understand.” 

ἔσεσθε. . . λαλοῦντες, the participle and substantive verb 
expressing the state, not the act only: “ You will be in the 
condition of men speaking to the winds,” . 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—xIv. 7-11. 863 


Vv. 10,11. An illustration to the same effect from natural 
sounds. 

εἰ τύχοι is sometimes, like μάλιστα, used with numerals 
or numeral pronouns to make them indefinite.  Riickert 
renders it “for example,” as in xv. 37. But as the previous 
verse itself contains an illustration, it is more natural to under- 
stand εἰ τύχοι in the other sense: “There are so many— 
whatever the number may be.” 

γένη φωνῶν, “kinds of voices.” Chrys., Estius, De Wette, 
Meyer, Heinrici restrict the meaning of φωνή here to human 
languages. So in 4 Mace. xii. 7, ἐν τῇ Ἑ βραΐδι φωνῇ. But 
the expression “kinds of languages” is not natural, if the 
Apostle means the number of languages spoken amongst men 
(cf. xu. 10). Rather, he distinguishes the variety of utterance 
in nature, in the same way as he speaks in xv. 39 of the 
various kinds of flesh. 

Kal οὐδὲξ ἄφωνον. NABC omit αὐτῶν after οὐδέν. 
Grotius, Bleek (Stud. u. Krit., 1829, p. 66), Evans explain 
the words to mean that no creature is without voice of some 
kind. In favour of this is the usage of ἄφωνος, which signifies, 
not “without meaning” (as if ἄφωνος were synon. with ἄδηλος 
φωνή), but “without speech.”” The objection is that this 
would be simply a repetition of what the Apostle has just said 
or, at best, a needless addition. Probably a play on the word 
is intended, as in Bios aBiwtos. ““Νὸο kind of voice is voice- 
less,” that is, no utterance of any creature is without meaning. 

V.11. δύναμιν, “force” of a word, “ signification.” Here 
only so used in the New Test. Cf. Plat., Critias p. 113, 
διωπυνθανομένων τὴν τῶν ὀνομάτων δύναμιν. The reference 
now limits itself to human languages, through the change of 
subject (εἰδῶ) to the Apostle himself. 

- βάρβαρος, “a foreigner.’ It is explained by Herodotus 
(II. 158), οὗ μὴ ὁμόγλωσσοι. Cf. Ovid, Trist. v. 10: “ Bar- 
_barus hie ego sum ‘quia non intelligor ulli.” Contempt is, 
however, covertly implied in the word, which is formed in 
imitation of the harsh sounds of a foreign language. The 
same contempt causes Sophocles (Trach. 1060) to give to a 
foreign land the appellation ἄγλωσσος, and Ailschylus (Agam. 
1050) and Aristophanes (Ran. 681) to compare the ἄγνωτα 
φωνὴν βάρβαρον to the chirping of the migratory swallows. 


864 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 


ἐν ἐμοί, “in my opinion.” So in class. Greek in the poets. 

V.12. “Since the gift of ecstatic utterance is inferior to 
that of prophecy because it is less useful, and since ye are 
eager to possess endowments of the Spirit, seek to excel in 
them to the edification of the Church.’”? Mosheim and Hey- 
denreich follow certain expositors referred to by Theophyl. in 
placing a stop after ὑμεῖς: “So also ye are barbarians to one 
another in your use of the gift of tongues.” This would leave 
the following words without connection. Meyer supposes a 
trajection of οὕτω καὶ ὑμεῖς, as if the words were part of the 
ἐπεί clause: ‘Since you also are in this manner, viz., by being 
barbarians to one another, desirous of spiritual gifts.’ This 
is harsh, and leaves the words unconnected with what pre- 
cedes. The clause must be connected with ζητεῖτε, and οὕτω 
will have its usual inferential signification: “ therefore, seek 
ye also,” etc. 

ἐπεὶ k.T.rX. A hint that they were seeking gifts for osten- 
tation. Emphasis on ζηλωταί. Emulation, not love, was in 
their eyes the more excellent way to attain spiritual endow- 
ments. 

πνευμάτων, not quite synon. with πνευματικῶν. The word 
sugeests that the Corinthians sought supernatural endow- 
ments, no matter what their nature might be. Cf. note on 
κι. 10. 

πρὸς . « .- περισσεύητε. Luther, Alford, Meyer thus: 
Seek spiritual gifts for the edification of the Church, that 
ye may abound.” Alford adds that he can find no instance 
of ζητῶ ἵνα, and thinks iv. 2 not to the point. But ἵνα can 
follow all verbs that signify wish, prayer, etc. The objection 
to the above rendering is that the Apostle’s evident purpose 
here is, not to exhort the Corinthians to aim at excellence, 
but to urge them to seek gifts profitable to the Church. We 
must, therefore, understand the words thus: “Seek to excel 
unto the edifying of the Church.” 

περισσεύειν has here, as in vill. 8, ἃ comparative meaning. 
The Corinthians were emulous of one another. This is implied 
in ἕηλωταί. Erasmus rightly renders, “ excellatis,” which is 
preferable to the Vulg. “ abundetis.” 

Vv. 13-.7. “Therefore he who has the gift of tongues 
should endeavour to use it in conjunction with the gift of 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—XIv. 11-14. _ 365 


interpretation. Yet, there are forms of the tongues them- 
selves, such as prayer and psalmody, that are capable of being 
used intelligently and, in consequence, for edification.” 

V.18. First, prayer. The words προσευχέσθω iva διερμη- 
νεύῃ have been explained in three different ways. (1) Chrys., 
Theod., Theophyl., etc., thus: “Ἰοὺ him pray for the gift of 
interpretation ;”” ἵνα denoting the purport of the prayer. Cf. 
note on ver. 12. The objection is that in ver. 14 the Apostle 
speaks, not of the advantage of interpreting, but of the 
superiority of praying with the reason over praying with the 
spirit only. (2) Valla and Luther thus: “let him that speaks 
in a tongue refrain from praying ina tongue, unless he can 
interpret his utterance.” But, though it may be admitted 
that ἵνα can mean ita ut, ‘in such a manner as to,” it is more 
natural to understand it (3) in the usual telic signification : 
“let him that has the gift of tongues pray with tongues, but 
let him do so with the purpose of interpreting his utterance 
afterwards; ”’ that is, he should not be content with ecstatic 
prayer, but should strive after the gift of interpreting his 
prayer. 

V.14. Reason for ver. 18. The gift of tongues, though it 
involves the activity of the πνεῦμα, leaves the action of the 
νοῦς in abeyance and, consequently, needs to be supplemented 
by interpretation. 

Our understanding of this verse depends on the meanings 
we attach to πνεῦμα and νοῦς. ΑΒ to πνεῦμα we may at once 
dismiss the rendering of Hrasmus, “breath,” as in 2 Thess. 
ii. 8; for it must have some relation to the gift of tongues. 
Neither can it mean the Charisma itself of the Spirit (Chrys., 
Theod., Calvin, Grotius), for then pov would not have been 
added. It must mean the man’s own spirit; that is, the man 
in so far as he is under the influence of the Spirit of God. Cf. 
notes on ii. 16; xiv. 2. The Apostle’s use of the word in 
connection with the gift of tongues is proof sufficient that 
Delitzsch, Canon Evans and Beet are not justified in describ- 
ing the spirit as ‘‘the quintessence of man’s spirit-nature 
. + . towering above the νοῦς and the Adyos;” as if the 
Holy Spirit did not act directly on every part of our nature, 
not excepting the body. Such a view renders the gift of 
tongues the most exalted of spiritual conditions. As to vods 


366 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


many expositors render it by “signification,” that is, of what 
is uttered in the prayer. So Theod., τὴν σαφήνειαν τῶν λε- 
γομένων, and he is followed by Cor. a Lap., Wolf, etc. The 
meaning would then be that the purport of the prayer uttered 
in a tongue is unintelligible and, consequently, unprofitable 
(ἄκαρπος) to the hearers. But this rendering is impossible in 
ver. 15. The natural antithesis to the man’s faculties under 
the influence of the Divine afflatus is the man’s unassisted 
powers. Novs will, therefore, mean here the human reason. 
It appears from this that the soul may be in prayerful com- 
munion with God without conscious thought couched in lan- 
guage; and no less truly, on the other hand, ecstatic utterance 
can be of no avail for the edification of others apart from true 
thoughts. Cf. Acts x. 10; Rev.i.10. The seer’s trance was 
akin to the mental condition of those that uttered in tongues. 
Heinrici aptly compares with the Apostle’s words Philo’s alle- 
gorical explanation of the supernatural ecstasy that seized on 
Abraham “about the time of the going down of the sun,” 
which is made to signify the setting and suppression of the 
natural faculties of the soul. 

ἄκαρπος. The course of the argument proves that the word 
is not to be understood in a passive sense (“my reason is not 
benefited”), as Chrys. and Calvin explain it. Is the word 
ever used passively? Here, at all events, it is active: “pro- 
ducing no spiritual grace,” μηδενὸς ὠφελουμένον (Basil). 
Besides, Chrysostom’s view is inconsistent with ver. 4. The 
word implies the ecstatic character of the utterance with 
tongues, 

V.15. τί οὖν éotw; “what then?” Cf. Acts xxi. 22; 
Rom. ii. 9. It introduces an expression of personal decision. 
It is equivalent to the phrase λέγω δὲ τοῦτο (cf. 1. 12). 

προσεύξομαι TO πνεύματι. So B. NAD read προσεύξωμαι. 
But the fut. indic. yields a meaning so much more satisfactory 
that προσεύξομαι must be accepted. So Lachm., Treg., 
Westc. and Hort. The best MSS. often confound o and o. 
If it were hortatory, we should have expected the plur. The 
former προσεύξομαι is concessive, and of similar import to μὴ 
κωλύετε (ver. 389); the second expresses the Apostle’s prefer- 
ence and determination. Bleek (Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 69), 
Osiander, ete., consider prayer with the spirit and prayer with 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—xIV. 14, 15. 907 


the reason to be separate acts; and if ἄκαρπος (ver. 14) implies 
that he who prayed with tongues was ina state of ecstasy, 
this view is correct. 

ψαλῶ. Second, from prayer the Apostle passes to the 
mention of praise, which is the second form (cf. note on ver. 
13) of the exercise of the gift of tongues capable of being used 
intelligently and for edification. Φάλλω, from yaw, meant 
originally “ to twang the strings with the tips of the fingers; ” 
then “ to sing to the accompaniment of the harp,” which is 
the more frequent signification in LXX. Basil accordingly 
defines a psalm as λόγος μουσικός, ὅταν εὐρύθμως κατὰ τοῦς 
ἁρμονικοὺς λόγους πρὸς τὸ ὄργανον κρούηται (Hom. in Ps. 
xxix.), and Gregory Nyssen, ψαλμὸς μέν ἐστιν ἡ διὰ τοῦ ὀργά- 
νου τοῦ μουσικοῦ μελωδία. Ἐϊχροβιύονδβ take for granted that 
ψάλλω is used in our passage generically, as synon. with dd. 
Certainly in Col. iii. 16 ἄδοντες alone occurs, while in the 
parallel passage, Eph. v. 19, we have ἄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες, 
apparently an amplification only of the expression. But why 
may we not suppose that the Corinthian Christians, when 
giving forth ecstatic utterances in song, accompanied the 
vocal singing with strains of music on the harp? The gift of 
tongues may on occasion have approached the phrenzy of the 
Bacchanal: 


λωτὸς ὅταν εὐκέλαδος ἱερὸς ἱερὰ 
matypata βρέμῃ σύνοχα φοιτάσιν. 


Kur., Bacch. 160. 


It is especially probable that they had introduced the harp, 
if not the flute, into the Christian feast of the Agapé. 
Clement of Alexandria (Paedag. Il. p. 193 Potter) permits 
the use of the harp and lyre. We can have no difficulty in 
thinking that the Apostle uses the word ψαλῶ metaphori- 
cally in reference to himself. He may have the Psalmist’s 
words, which he cites also in Rom. xv. 9, in his mind, ἐξομο- 
λογήσομαί σοὶ ἐν ἔθνεσι καὶ τῷ ὀνόματί gov ψαλῶ. David’s 
harpiug was accompanied by an intelligent confession of the 
Lord’s goodness, and the Apostle declares that he also will 
play his harp, that is praise the Lord, with his reason. The 
powers of his soul will be the strings on which he will play. 
Cf. Clem. Alex. ut sup., ἡ γλῶττα τὸ ψαλτήριον Κυρίου. It 


368 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


is sometimes said (cf. Trench, Syn. ὃ Ixxviii.) that the ψαλμοί 
mentioned in the New Test. (e.g. Eph. v. 19; Col. iii. 16) 
were the inspired psalms of the Hebrew canon, thus distin- 
guished from the ὕμνοι. But in Matt. xxvi. 30 and Mark 
xiv. 26 ὑμνοῦν is used of chanting the Old Test. psalms, and 
in post-apostolic times the ψαλμοὶ ἰδιωτικοί are distinguished 
from the ἔπη δαυιδικά. 

V. 16. Proof from a particular instance of the statement 
that he who utters in a tongue without interpretation does 
not edify the Church. 

ἐπεί, “for otherwise.” Cf. note on v. 10. 

εὐλογῇς, “if thou be blessing” God; that is, this is the 
purpose of the man who sings his psalm to the harp. It does 
not mean blessing God for the gift of ecstasy. 

ὁ ἀναπληρῶν τὸν τόπον τοῦ ἰδιώτου. In class. Greck ἐδιώ- 
τῆς has two meanings: (1) “‘a private person,” “ one who is 
not in office,” opp. to ἄρχων (as in Thue. I. 115) or πολιυτευό- 
μενος (Dem., Phil. IV. p. 150), ete., and, hence, ‘fone who 
has no professional knowledge,” “a leyman;” (2) “an un- 
practised, ignorant man,” opp. to δεινός (Dem., Phil. I. p. 50) 
or πεπαιδευμένος (Xen., Mem. ILI. xii.). In the New Test. 
the second is the only meaning. Cf. Acts iv. 15; 2 Cor. xi. 6. 
In the present chapter it is the name which the Corinthians 
would give in disparagement of those that had not the gift of 
tongues. Theod. excellently: of ἀμύητοι. Several explana- 
tions of the other words have been offered: (1) Cor. a Lap.: 
“ He that occupies the seat in the public assemblies reserved 
for those who have no gifts.” But why should the Apostle 
refer to such local separation, even if it had any existence 
at thistime? (2) Aquinas and Hstius consider the person that 
occupied the place of the unlearned to have been the minister 
who uttered the responses on behalf of the people. This is 
to transfer to the Apostolic age what belongs to much later 
times. (3) The only satisfactory explanation is that (in the 
main) of Cyril (Cut.) among the Fathers, Neander, De Wette, 
Riickert, Rothe (dnfange, p. 156), etc., that we have here an 
allusion to the synagogue worship, in which the congregation 
is distinguished from the officiating minister. But in the 
synagogue the distinction was fixed, in the Christian Churches 
gifts were bestowed on all in various degrees and at various 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—XIV. 15, 16. 369 


times. The minister might become a mere hearer, and th» 
hearer in turn an instructor. ‘ He that fills the place of the 
unlearned” (as the Corinthians would designate him) is he 
that occupies at the time the position of a hearer. Anon 
he may take the place of teacher. Cf. τάξιν ἀναπληροῦν 
(Joseph., B. J. V. τ. δ); Acts i. 25, λαβεῖν τὸν τόπον τῆς 
διακονίας ταύτης and espec. Clem., Ad Cor. 63, τὸν ὑπακοὴς 
τόπον ἀνωαπληρώσαντας (“occupying the position of an obe- 
dient man”). The words imply the universal ministry ἐν 
δυνάμει of all Christians, and the special function of every 
one ἐν évepye(g. When Clement of Rome wrote his letter to 
the Corinthians the distinction between clergy and laity was 
established. Cf. Clem., Ad Cor. 40. But to infer from this 
verse that the distinction had been fixed when the Apostle 
wrote (so Chrys., Theod., Gicum., Theophyl., Olshausen, etc.) 
is the reverse of what the words justify us in inferring. It 
is also an anachronism to identify the ἐδιῶταιν with the cate- 
chumens, though the condition of the apostolic Churches was 
preparing the way for subsequent developments. 

πῶς ἐρεῖ, “how will he say?” It is a true fut. and not 
synon. with the deliberative subjunctive. Cf. ver. 7. The 
doubt is, not whether he is to say or not to say Amen, but how 
it will be brought about. Cf. however Winer, Gr. § XL. 6. 

τὸ ἀμήν, the customary Amen.’? Another reference to 
what had passed into the Church from the synagogue. The 
“Amen” was the response (ἐπιφώνημα) of the congregation 
to the prayers of the minister, and especially to his declaration 
of God’s promises and threatenings. Cf. Deut. xxvii. 15, 
where LXX. renders it by γένοιτο; 1 Chron. xvi. 86; Neh. 
viii. 6. That the usage had passed into the public worship. 
of the Christian Churches is amply vouched for by the early 
Fathers. Cf. Justin M., Apol. I. 65, p. 97, οὗ συντελέσαντος. 
Tas εὐχὰ; καὶ τὴν εὐχαριστίαν Tas ὁ παρὼν λαὸς ἐπευφημεῖ 
λέγων μήν, and Tert., De Spect. 25, “ex ore quo Amen in 
Sanctum protuleris.”? Cf. Cyril of Jerus., Cat. xxviii. 18; 
Ambrose, De Myst. 9; Jerome, Cumm. in Gai., Procem.; 
August., Contra Faust. XII. 10. 

ἐπί, that is, as a seal upon it; ἐπισφραγίζων, Cyr. (ut sup.). 
he pron. τῇ of does not imply that the thanksgiving is “ pro- 
prium et privatum” (Cor. a Lap.) ; but it does imply that 

B Β 


370 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the minister’s prayer was extemporary. There is no reason 
why the reference should be restricted to the Lord’s Supper 
(Beza, etc.). 

Ti λέγεις, “what is the meaning of thy utterance” Cf. 
note on 1. 12. Bleek rightly infers (Stud. uw. Krit., 1829, p. 
70) tnat the public prayers did not at this time consist of 
fixed forms. 

V.17. καλῶς, not ironical (Wetstein), as in Mark vii. 9. 
Ecstatic utterance might be profitable to the man himself, and 
the Apostle desired all to receive the gift. 

μὲν ἀλλά, not δέ, in order to mark the antithesis strongly. 
Αλλά means “ but what.of that ?” 

ὁ ἕτερος, not ἄλλος, and expressing some degree of contrast 
between teacher and hearer. Cf. Gal. 1. 6. 

Vv. 18,19. The Apostle’s own preference. 

V. 18. NA BD omit pov. So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., 
Westc. and Hort ; but Reiche retains it. NAD read γλώσσῃ, 
B γλώσσαις. The sing. is adopted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg. ; 
Westc. and Hort doubtful. NBD read λαλῶ. So Tisch. 
(8th ed.), Treg., Westc. and Hort. A omits it. The evidence 
is sufficient in favour of εὐχαριστῶ τῷ θεῷ πάντων ὑμῶν 
μᾶλλον γλώσσῃ λαλῶ. Vulg. curiously omits to translate 
μᾶλλον : “quod omnium vestrum lingua loquor,” as if the 
Apostle were thanking God that he could speak the langnages 
of all. De Wette, following A in omitting λαλῶ, thinks 
εὐχαριστῶ refers to the exercise of the gift of tongues: “1 
thank God in a tongue more than you all.” Similarly Cajetan 
and Reiche, λαλῶν. Others, though reading λαλῶ, render: 
ἍΤ thank God that I speak in a tongue more than all of you.” 
The omission of ὅτι is not a Hebraism, but occurs occasionally 
‘in class. Greek, espec. after οἶμαι. But εὐχαριστῶ must have 
‘the same meaning in this and in the previous verse ; that is, 
it refers in both verses to ecstatic utterance of thanks. Canon 
Evans well observes that the style becomes abrupt and climac- 
teric. The meaning is: “I give thanks to God—more than 
all of you I speak in a tongue.” The Apostle exercised ὑπὸ 
gift of tongues in private even. 

W 19. om weal mse pou N ABD read τῷ voi, which is 
adopted by most critics, 


θέλω... 4. This comparative use of θέλω (malo) occurs 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—XIV. 16-20. STL 


in Hom. (e.g. Od. iti. 324), and βούλομαι is freq. so used in 
class. Greek. Cf. 2 Macc. xiv. 42. 

κατηχήσω. The late Greek κατηχέω means “to teach by 
word of mouth” (lit. ‘‘to sound abroad’), and in the early 
Church was especially used of instruction in the elements (τὰ 
στοιχεῖα) of doctrine. After the Apostolic age such as were 
under instruction with a view to baptism came to be called 
catechumens. 

mévte, that is, “a few.” Cf. Isa. xxx. 17. 

Kstius vainly strives to break the foree of the argument 
drawn from this verse for using the vernacular in public 
prayers. But Cajetan acknowledges that the Apostle’s words 
directly discourage the use of a language not understood by 
the people, and Erasmus waxes eloquent in censuring the 
introduction of all kinds of musical instruments into the 
service of the Church. 

V. 20. The argument closes with an abrupt exhortation, 
the sharpness of which is qualified by the word ἀδελφοί. 
Calvin joins the ver..to what follows, but incorrectly. The 
Corinthians set the highest value on the gift of tongues 
from childish ostentation, while they despised prophecy, a 
gift that demanded for its fitting exercise manly thought and 
ratiocination. 

γίνεσθε, not so harsh as ἔσεσθε. They were childish. But 
he only urges them not to become such. 

ταῖς φρεσίν, “in judgment.” The word occurs only here 
in the New Test. The Apostle probably wished to avoid 
using νοῦς, which has in the previous verse a somewhat 
different meaning, the conscious reason as distinguished from 
ecstasy. Φρήν is properly the midriff (from φράσσω). After- 
wards διάφραγμα was used for midriff, when φρήν acquired 
its more usual metaphorical meaning of “ mind.” The datives 
here are of reference or sphere. Cf. note on vii. 34. 

νηπιώζετε, “in evil be, not boyish, but actually childish.” 
The Corinthians were not children in every respect. But, 
instead of manifesting the childlike innocence of gooduess 
and manly vigour of judgment, they were in judgment childish 
and in evil wise. Vain as a child they yet had not the “ noble 
simplicity ” of the good man. 

Vv. 21-25, What he has said in ver. 20 reminds the 


912 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Apostle of Isaiah’s words (xxviii. 9), “ Whom will he make 
to understand the tidings? Those weaned from the milk and 
removed from the breast ἢ " Recent expositors, including 
Delitzsch, accept Lowth’s explanation of these words: “ The 
scoffers are introduced as uttering their sententious speeches ; 
they treat God’s method of dealing with them and warning 
them by His prophets with contempt and derision. What, say 
they, doth He treat us as mere infants just weaned? Doth He 
teach us like little children, perpetually inculcating the same 
elementary lessons, the mere rudiments of knowledge, precept 
after precept, line after line, here and there, by little and 
little? . . . God by His prophet retorts upon them with 
great severity their own contemptuous mockery, turning it to 
a sense quite different from what they intended. Yes, saith 
He, it shall be in fact as you say: ye shall be taught by a 
strange tongue and a stammering lip, in a strange country.” 
This is precisely the connection between ver. 20 and what 
follows. The Apostle taunts the Corinthians, as the prophet © 
taunts Israel, with being children in understanding ; and, as 
the Lord threatens to speak to Israel in the to them unin- 
telligible language of the Assyrians, so the childish vanity 
and ostentation of the Corinthian Christians is visited with 
an outburst of ecstatic cries in the Church assemblies. The 
tongues are an example of analogical retribution; childish- 
ness receiving childish gifts. But the Apostle discovers yet 
another analogy between Israel and the Corinthian Christians. 
The Lord spoke to Israel with the stammering tongues of 
Assyria as a punishment for unbelief and disobedience. From 
this the Apostle infers (ὥστε, ver. 22) that the unintelligible 
utterances of ecstasy in the Church must be regarded as a 
punishment of the unbelieving heathen of Corinth. If un- 
intelligible speech was a symbol of the Divine retribution 
under the shadowy and ceremonial dispensation, much more 
is it so when we have the fuller revelation of God’s truth 
addressed to the discernment of the spiritual man. Dis- 
obedient Israel is, therefore, a type, not only of the childish 
Christian, but also of the unbelieving heathen. A cutting 
rebuke to the Judaisers! The word σημεῖον is emphatic. 
This is evident from its position in the sentence, but much 

more from the allusion it contains to the symbolical character 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—XIV. 21-25. 373 


of the stammering tongues of the Assyrians. Their strange 
speech was a sign to the Jews that God’s retribution was at 
hand. In like manner the ecstatic cries in the Church assem- 
blies were intended by God to be a sign to the unbelievers 
that the day of the Lord was near. The Apostle further 
infers, on the other hand, that prophecy or the intelligent 
exposition of Divine truth by revelation is a sign of God’s 
grace to be bestowed on those who believe. Christian teach- 
ing may be compared to the “ precept on precept ” mocked of 
yore by priests and prophets, as they reeled with wine and 
staggered with strong drink. But, though despised by the 
self-satisfied Corinthians, it is well adapted for instructing 
such as have the childlike simplicity to believe (ver. 22), and 
for leading them on to maturity of spiritual understanding 
without marring the innocence of their moral childlikeness. 
Faith it is that makes the exposition of Divine truth effective, 
and unbelief not only hinders the salutary influence of Christ- 
ian teaching, but actually causes the Divine method to be 
changed and ecstasy to be substituted for revelation of truth. 
Even this is not-all. St. Paul sees yet a third point of 
resemblance between Israel and the men of his own day. As 
the stammering lips of the Assyrians left the Jews in their 
impenitence, so will the ecstatic utterances in the Church be 
ineffectual to lead the hearers to repentance and faith (ver. 23). 
The Apostle makes the supposition that the whole Church is 
assembled in one place and that all present have the gift of 
tongues, a supposition very unlikely to be realized, but here 
made in order to present the action and effect of ecstasy under 
the most favourable conditions. But the unbeliever is con- 
firmed in his unbelief and turns to mocking the new religion. 
Christ, whose cross is already foolishness to the Greeks, is 
crucified afresh and His followers declared to be mad in 
consequence of the childish vanity of Christians. Moreover, 
the unbelieving heathen is not the only person that is alienated | 
by the ecstatic utterances. Even the simple, little gifted 
Christian, the éév@775 of the Church, is morally injured and 
learns to scorn what he has hitherto reverenced. On the other 
hand, Christian teaching of the deeper meaning of the Gospel, 
which was intended for the edification of believers, not for 
the conversion of the heathen (inasmuch as the wisdom of the 


374 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Gospel is spoken only among such as are of mature age), 
accomplishes now both results. It strengthens the Christian 
that is as yet poor in gifts and convicts the unbeliever, who 
came to scoff but remains to pray. 

The views adopted by various expositors of the connection 
and meaning of these verses seem to me to be based either on 
too narrow a foundation or else on a wrong interpretation of 
the passage in Isaiah. Thus, Wordsworth explains the pro- 
phet’s words to mean that God would speak to the Jews in 
tongues foreign to the speakers, who are supposed to be the 
prophets. Chrys., Gicum., De Wette, Meyer, Alford, Shore, 
Heinrici, etc., say the Apostle’s purpose is to show the com- 
parative uselessness of the gift of tongues for the conversion 
of unbelievers. 

V.21. ἐν τῷ νόμῳ. Cf. note on x. 4, He is citing Isaiah. 
The two sides of the Old Dispensation, the legal and the 
evangelical, are not exactly identical with the distinction 
between the Books of the Law and of the Prophets. They 
are rather two distinct, but not separate, elements that run 
together through the entire course of its history. Hence the 
prophetical books are’ called “the law,” and in Clem. Rom., 
Ad Cor. 43, all the books of the Old Test. are called “the 
prophets.” Cf. John x. 34, where the Psalms are said to 


be “the law.” In Luke x. 26 the more limited meaning - 


occurs. 

ἐν ἑτερογλώσσοις, “in the persons (or, by the mouth) of 
men that speak a foreign language.” This is the proper 
signification of ἑτερόγλωσσος. Cf. Ps. cxiii. (cxiv.) 1, where 
Aquila has ἀπὸ λαοῦ ἑτερογλώσσου, Symmachus ἐκ λαοῦ 


ἀλλοφώνου, and LXX. ἐκ λαοῦ βαρβάρου. So in Polyb. 


XXIV. ix. 5. In our passage Grimm (Lew. s.v.) renders it, 


“qui prorsus insolita, que absque interpretatione ab aliis non 
intelliguntur, proloquitur,’” but without warrant. Isaiah is 
not predicting the gift of tongues. The Apostle makes an 
analogical use of the prophet’s words. It is sufficient that the 
Lord punished Israel with the stammering lips of the Assyrians 
and the childishness of Christians as well as the unbelief of 
the heathen with the inarticulate utterances of ecstasy. It is 
true the Hebrew word means “stammering lips.” But that 
is simply a derisive name for a foreign language. Of. note on 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—xIv. 21-23, 375. 


ver. 11. LXX. has διὰ γλώσσης ἑτέρας, but Aquila (Origen, 
Te«apla) ἐν ἑτερογχώσσοις, like the Apostle. 

ev. Of. Matt. ix. 34; Acts xvii. 31. 

ἐν χείλεσιν ἑτέρων. LXX. has διὰ φαυλισμὸν χειλέων, 
which is an incorrect rendering of the Heb. The prophet 
speaks, not of contemptuous, but of stammering, lips. The 
Apostle’s rendering is not quite literal, and he has changed 
the order of the words. So Aquila, only that he has ἑτέροις. 

λαλήσω. So Aquila. But LXX. has λαλήσουσι. The Heb. 
means “ he will speak.” The Apostle’s rendering, though not 
literal, gives the sense, inasmuch as he adds λέγει Κύριος. 

οὐδ᾽ οὕτως, “not even then.” Cf. note on xi. 28, 

εἰσακούσονται. Cf. “obedio,”’ that is, ‘ob-audio.” Not 
even when God speaks in anger will Israel give heed. 

ἀν aoe... Ofsbi« 7} vii, 38. 

εἰς, expressing the Divine purpose. Cf. Acts xiii. 47. 

σημεῖον. Hwphatic (against De Wette, Alford, Hofmann), 
and not to be restricted to miracles (Calv.). The citation in 
ver. 21 proves that the tongues are meant to be an exter- 
nal sign of a Divine purpose; but they are not such a sign 
as will be a means of grace to believers. They are a sign of 
retribution to the unbelievers, which they, nevertheless, will 
often fail to understand. 

τοῖς πιστεύουσιν. Hofmann aptly points out the distinc- 
tion between of πιστεύοντες and of πιστοί. The participle 
directs attention to the fact that faith is the spiritual condition 
which determines the nature and effect of the σημεῖον. To 
him that believes God will vouchsafe a sign of His grace, 
and this will be a revelation of truths; to the unbeliever God 
speaks through tongues and they are a sign of His intention 
to punish. 

V. 23. All this is applied to the actual state of the Cor- 
inthian Church. 

πάντες λαλῶσι γλώσσαις. According to most expositors 
the supposition is that all speak, not at once, but in turns, 
because in ver. 24 we cannot suppose that they all prophe- 
sied at the same time. The view of Ambrosiaster, Cor. a Lap., 
and Maier seems to me preferable. In the case of ecstatic 
utterances all would probably speak at the same time and tu- 
multuously ; for it is the confusion quite as much as the unin- 


376 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


telligible character of the utterance that causes the onlooker to 
declare the speakers mad. But in the case of prophecy the 
nature of the gift implies self-possession and a conscious effort 
to edify the Church; so that the prophets must have spoken 
in succession. In verse 27 it is expressly forbidden to speak 
in tongues except ἀνὰ μέρος. Some, therefore, must have 
been in the habit of uttering simultaneously. 

ἰδιῶται. Cf. ver. 16. As the whole Church is supposed to 
speak with tongues, Meyer suggests that the uninitiated man 
comes from another congregation. We have no ground for 
thinking that there were more than one ἐκκλησία in Corinth; 
and, if there were, the ἰδιώτης cannot be supposed to have 
been so ignorant of the nature of the divinely bestowed gift 
of tongues as to call his brethren who had been endowed with 
it mad. De Wette, Hofmann, Hodge, etc., conclude that he 
isa heathen, like the ἄπιστος. He is ἰδιώτης τῆς πίστεως. 
The ἰδιώτης will then be a heathen ignorant of Christianity, 
the ἄπιστος a heathen who is hostile to it. The disjunctive 
ἤ is no objection to this. The objection is that οἱ ἄπιστοι 
is the general designation of all who are not Christians (cf. vi. 
6). The word does not convey the notion of having rejected 
the Gospel, which is implied in ἀπειθής (Acts xxvi. 19), not 
even in Tit.i. 15, Perhaps we shall not go far wrong in sug- 
gesting that this ἰδιώτης is a Christian that has not attached 
himself to the Church (cf. note on 1. 1). Such separatists 
would, it is not unlikely, be entire strangers to those gifts of 
the Spirit that were largely bestowed on the assembled con- 
gregation of Christians. Hence the Apostle can naturally set 
the ἐδιώτης with the ἄπιστος over against the ἐκκλησία. 

μαίνεσθε, “that you are possessed,” that is, by a demon. 
Cf. John x. 20; Plat., Phiedr. p. 245, ἀπὸ Μουσῶν κατοκωχὴ 
καὶ μανία, and Herodot. iv. 79, ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ μαίνεται. Plato 
(Τἴην. p. 72) has seen that μάντις is derived from μαίνομαι. 
Instead of ascribing the ecstasy of Christians to the Spirit of 
God, who had indeed bestowed the gift, the unlearned or the 
unbeliever would ascribe it to a demon. Teaching and pro- 
phecy, on the contrary, leads the hearers to confess that the 
living God is the source of Christian inspiration. 

V. 24, The change to the sing. seems to be intentional. 
Derision gathers strength from numbers; conviction is deep- 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—XIVv. 23-25. ole 


ened in solitude. Perhaps also ἰδιῶται is put first in ver. 
23 to intimate that even a Christian is repelled by the babel 
of tongues, and ἄπιστος put first in this verse, because even a 
heathen is convicted by the spiritual power of the truth. 

ἐλέγχεται, “is convicted ” of sin; dvaxpiverat, “is brought 
to judgment.” The former corresponds to the ἐλέγξει τὸν 
κόσμον περὶ ἁμαρτίας of John xvi. 8, the latter to the ἐλέγξει 
τὸν κόσμον περὶ κρίσεως. Cf. next ver. 

τὰ κρυπτὰ. .. γίνεται. These words indicate the manner 
in which the man is brought to judgment. The prophets have 
the gift of knowing and making known the hidden things of 
his heart. But the judgment is not the result of mere know- 
ledge. The promise of Christ to send the Spirit to convince 
the world of sin and judgment is here fulfilled. An instance 
of this is the conversion of Augustine, who went to hear 
Ambrose and try to account for his eloquence, but was by 
degrees and unawares to himself drawn to the faith (Conf. 
V.xui.). Calvin cites Heb. iv. 12. Chrysostom confines the 
reference too much to the detection of the persecutor’s mis- 
chievous designs by the prophet. But this is parallel to the 
narrowness and, if I may say so, the unspiritualness of his 
interpretation of δύναμες in i. 5. ᾿ 

ὑπὸ πάντων, emphatically repeated: There is absolutely no 
variance. Confusion and dissension, the besetting sins of the 
Corinthian Church, entirely cease under the mighty influence 
of inspired teaching. 

V. 25. The result of conviction is confession. The un- 
believer falls on his face in shame that the hidden sins of his 
heart should have been brought to light. This corresponds 
to the ἐλέγξει τὸν κόσμον περὶ δικαιοσύνης of John xvi. 8. 
Cf. note on ἐλέγχεται, ver. 24. 

τῷ Θεῷ. In the Attic writers προσκυνῶ takes the accus., 
in LXX. and New Test. dat. and accus. 

ἀπαγγέλλων, not merely by his action but also in words. 
The prophetie inspiration seizes him too; and so inspired, 
when the Church has declared the hidden evils of his heart, 
he in turn declares the Divine inspiration that dwells in 
their hearts. Ἔν ὑμῖν means the mystical indwelling of the 
Spirit. The Apostle has in his mind Isa. xlv. 14, rendered 
in LXX. ἐν σοὶ ὁ Θεός. But he intentionally shuns the pro- 


378 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


phet’s expression “unto thee [i.e., Israel as type of Christ], 
shall they pray,” substituting for it “he shall worship God.” 
Cf. Rev. xix. 10. 

ὄντως. It is not a fictitious or pretended inspiration, as 
he now confesses and perhaps always believed the phrenzy of 
the heathen μάντεις to have been. 

Vv. 26-23. Exhortations with a view to the orderly use of 
the two opposite gifts of ecstatic utterance and prophecy. 

V. 26. ‘If your use of the gift of tongues occasions your 
being deemed mad, and if prophecy leads to the conversion of 
an unbeliever and the adherence of a separatist, what then? 
(τί οὖν ἐστι:) How are these gifts to be exercised?” Cf. 
note on ver. 15. 

ψαλμόν, taken from Scripture or “de proprio ingenio” 
(Tert., Apol. 89). It appears also from this passage of Ter- 
tullian that in his days sometimes one member sang while all 
the others sat in silence. ‘This illustrates the words “ having 
a psalm.” At the Council of Laodicea (circa 370 a.p.) the 
singing of ψαλμοὶ ἰδιωτικοί in the Church was forbidden. 

ἔχει, not a question (Grot.) nor meaning ‘keeps to him- 
self,” as if the Apostle were blaming them; but “has as his 
special gift which he is prepared to exercise in the assembly.” 
Estius excellently : “in promptu habet.” One has one gift, 
another has another; but every one has a gift. It is this 
variety and abundance that renders it necessary to lay down 
rules of order. The first rule is the general one, already 
implied in the nature and purpose of the gifts, that all things 
must be done for edification. Cf. xii. 8. 

V. 27. Griesbach, Scholz and Hofmann read ei τε for εἴτε, 
“and if” for “whether.” But as the tongues have been 
mentioned in ver. 26, the reference in ver. 27 cannot be au 
addition. Meyer and De Wette are undoubtedly right in 
thinking that the second εἴτε (“whether . . . or”) before 
προφῆται in ver. 29 has been omitted because the construction 
is disturbed by the intrusion of ver. 28. 

κατὰ δύο, not “let only two or at most three speak at one 
meeting,” as if the Apostle wished to discourage long services ; 
but “let them speak only two and two together, or at most 
three and three together.” Cf. Mark vi. 40, κατὰ ἑκατὸν καὶ 
κατὰ πεντήκοντα. He does not altogether forbid their speak- 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—XIV. 25-30. 379 


ing in tongues together, but for the sake of order he qualifies 
this permission by insisting, first, that only two or at most 
three should utter together, and, second, that each should take 
a part and speak antiphonically (ἀνὰ μέρος, “in turns”’), until 
they came to the end of their utterance. By means of these 
simple modifications the ecstatic utterances of the primitive 
Church passed by an easy and apparently rapid gradation into 
Church music; for in Pliny’s letter to Trajan mention is made 
of antiphonal singing among the Christians. The tradition 
that Ignatius in the early part of the second century intro- 
duced antiphonal music means, perhaps, that he brought 
about the final step in the transition. In proportion as this 
transition would be effected the necessity for the interpretation 
of the ecstatic utterance would cease. The Apostle himself 
limits the number of interpreters to one. 

V. 28. ἑαυτῷ... Θεῷ, a proverbial phrase, but applied 
by the Apostle with a reality and fulness of meaning. Medi- 
tation is a prayer. 

ἢ, for the class. παρῇ, sit for adsit. Cf. Luke v.17. Soin 
Hom., Il. ix. 688, εἰσί for παρεισί. 

V. 29. The prophets are not said to speak κατὰ δύο. 
Every one would receive his inspiration by and for himself. 
Hence the necessity for limiting the number of even prophetical 
speakers, notwithstanding the superiority of prophecy. Ex- 
cess of this gift also might occasion confusion in the Church. 
It is evident that the Apostle sets a limit to the exercise of 
prophecy, though not so strictly as in the case of tongues. 
In flat contradiction to the Apostle’s injunction to judge the 
prophets, the ‘ Didache,” ὁ. 11, says, πάντα προφήτην λα- 
λοῦντα ἐν πνεύματι ov πειράσετε οὐδὲ διακρινεῖτε, adding 
that to judge the utterances of prophets in the Church is the 
unpardonable sin. 

V. 80. Before one has done speaking another is conscious 
of having received utterance from the Spirit of God and rises 
to siperih The former is to accept this as an intimation that 
his inspiration is for the present at an end. 

καθημένῳ. The prophets, therefore, spoke standing. This 
is suggestive. Among the Jews teacher and congregation 
sat (cf. Mark ii. 32). In Matt. xiii. 2 the standing posture 
of the hearers is mentioned because it was unusual. But 


980 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


during prayer and the reading of the law minister and congre- 
gation stood (cf. Luke iv. 16). When men uttered their own 
thoughts, or listened to man’s utterances, they sat; when 
they read the words of God or addressed God, they stood. 
In the Christian assemblies, likewise, all stood to pray and 
to prophecy. Cf. Justin M, Apol. I. 98, ἔπειτα ἀνιστάμεθα 
κοινῇ πάντες Kal εὐχὰς πέμπομεν. He that prophesied was 
inspired to speak God’s words to the assembly. 

VY. 81 δύνασθε, emphatic. The gift of tongues was pos- 
sessed by comparatively few. But the Apostle recognises in 
all Christians the possibility of becoming prophets. This is 
a reason why every one should show readiness to listen to the 
utterances of every other one. In the next clause the Apostle 
tells us what the practical advantage of this universal character 
of the gift is. If all prophesy, all will learn, all will be com- 
forted. One man will impart what another cannot, and will 
receive from another to whom also he has given. ! 

xa?’ ἕνα may mean either “all without one exception” 
(as in Eph. v. 99) or ‘taken singly,” “one by one” (as in 
Herodot. vii. 104, where κατὰ μὲν ἕνα is opposed to ἁλέες δέ). 
The latter is the class. meaning. But the former is prefer- 
able here. So De Wette. ‘The nature of prophecy was itself 
enough to prove the absurdity of the supposition that several 
could prophesy at one time in the same assembly. 

μανθάνωσι. .. παρακαλῶνται. The comfort sprang from 
the inspired proclamation of revealed truth. 

V. 32, Another reason why every one that prophesies 
should cease to speak when the inspiration falls upon another 
sitting by. Not only every member of the Church has the 
germ of a prophet in him, but also every prophet is self- 
possessed and master of his utterance. 

πνεύματα. Cf. note on xii. 10, διακρίσεις πνευμάτων. As 
in ver. 12, πνεύματα here also denotes the various forms of 
prophetic utterance, which are to be controlled spite of their 
being inspired. It is not necessary to suppose, with Hilyen- 
feld (Glossol. p. 52), that ὑποτάσσειν means “to bring an 
antagonist into subjection.” Cf. ver. 34; Luke ii. 51. On 
the other hand Meyer’s view that πνεῦμα means the human 
spirit must be rejected. It is unnatural to say that a man’s 
own spirit is subjected to him. Chrys., Theod., Hstius’s 


ἐς fines 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—xIv. 30-33. 951 


explanation, that one prophet is subjected to another and 
ceases to speak that the second may utter his revelation, does 
not assign to ὑποτάσσειν its full meaning. Stanley well ob- 
serves that the Apostle distinguishes “these impulses from 
those of the heathen pythonesses and sibyls.””? The latter 
were as it were a lyre played by an invisible hand. 

ὑποτάσσεται. An instance of a pres. approximating in 
meaning to a perf. Cf. Luke x. 17; Heb. iv. 1, καταλειπο- 
μένης. So in Thuc. VI. 2, Ἰλίου ἁλισκομένου. Ὁ φεύγων 
means “he who has been banished.’ Cf. Poppo’s note on 
Thue. II. 2, § 4, ἐπαγομένοις. The pres. expresses that the 
effect of the subjection continues up to the present time. 

V. 88. That God is not God of disorder but of peace is a 
reason, not only for the injunction to give way to one another 
in the Church assemblies, but also for the general principle 
taught in the whole of the chapter, that variety of gifts is 
perfectly consistent with unity of spiritual life. 

ἀκαταστασίας, sc. θεός. Cf. Rom. xv. 5, 18, 33. Axata- 
στασία means, not mere confusion, but moral disorder. In 
2 Cor. xii. 20 and Clem. Rom., Ad Cor. 3, it is in the same 
series with ἔρις, ζῆλος, etc. Of. James iii. 16. 

Vv. 34,35. The women must keep silence in the assem- 
blies. Cf. 1 Tim. τ. 12. In xi. 5 the Apostle permits the 
women to pray and prophesy in the assembly under certain 
restrictions. The discussion of the gifts of tongues seems to 
have led him to withdraw even that limited permission. The 
ecstasy of the priestesses of Montanism sufficiently proves the 
sagacity of the Apostle’s precept. In the so called “ Apostolic 
Constitutions ”’ (Π|. 6, 9) the women are permitted to pray in 
the Church, but not to teach, and the impiety of the Greeks, 
who appointed priestesses for the service of goddesses, is 
censured, 

V. 33. The words “as in all the Churches of the saints” 
are joined with what precedes in the Vulgate and by the ancient 
commentators, by Maier, Alford, Tree., and in the Revised 
Version. Cajetan connects them with what follows, and so 
do Griesbach, Tisch., Reiche, De Wette, Meyer, etc. Weste. 
and Hort connect them with παρακαλῶνται. It certainly 
seems unnatural to say that God was God of peace in the 
Corinthian Church. On the other hand, if the words are 


382 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


connected with what follows, then the partial permission given 
in x1. 5 is an exception to the rule observed elsewhere and 
it is difficult to account for its being given. It is not a 
concession to Greek sentiment. Γυναιξὶ κόσμον ἡ σιγὴ φέρει 
(Soph., Aj. 398). Again, to enclose the words from καὶ 
πνεύματα to εἰρήνης within parentheses seems to be inadmis- 
sible, because they are an additional (καί) notion. Upon the 
whole it is better to connect the clause with ἀλλὰ εἰρήνης. 
But by “peace” we must understand, not mere freedom 
from contention, but the profound calm of soul possessed 
by a believer, as in vil. 15. God is not the author of spiritual 
uurest, but gives inward peace. This is the universal test of 
Christianity. Outside the pale of the Church it is not to be 
found ; within the Church it abounds and, spite of conten- 
tions, actually exists in some persons in all the Churches. 
For it is the offspring of holiness, the peculiar moral excel- 
lence of believers. ‘‘ God, therefore, is not God of unrest, but 
God. of peace, as we see to be the fact in all the Churches 
of the holy.” We must beware of mentally supplying, with 
some of the Fathers, διδάσκω or διατάσσομαι after ὡς. 
Lachm. connects τῶν ἁγίων with ai γυναῖκες, but this places 
an unnatural emphasis on the adjective. 

V. 34. 8 AB, Vulg. omit ὑμῶν. C. deficit. Meyer, Reiche, 
Hofmann retain it from D, but unnecessarily. 

ἐπιτρέπεται. SoNABD, Vulg. (permittitur). Reiche de- 
fends ἐπιτέτραπται on the ground that the perfect expresses 
the Divine ordinance (Gen. iii. 16) and the example of holy 
women under the Old Test. But the word glances at the 
permission given in chap. x1., which is now withdrawn, and 
as a reason for withdrawing it the Apostle adds that it is not 
“usually permitted ”’ in the Churches. 

ὑποτασσέσθωσαν. SoNAB. Ὁ has ὑποτάσσεσθαι. Tf 
the inf. is read ὀφείλομαι or βούλομαι must be mentally sup- 
plied, asin 1 Tim. 11. 12; iv. 8. So Reiche and Meyer. The 
inf. would refer to subjection in the assembly, the imper. to 
subjection generally. . 

νόμος. Gen. ui. 16. Cf. note on ver. 21. 

V. 35. The women are not permitted even to ask questions 
in the assembly. It is indecent (αἰσχρόν) for them to talk 
(λαλεῖν) in public. 


THE SPIRITUAL GIFTS.—XIV. 33-37. 383 


V. 36-40. He ends the discussion concerning spiritual 
gifts, first, with a sharp rebuke of their spiritual pride, and, 
second, a final exhortation to them to covet the gift of pro- 
pleey, though he will not altogether discourage the gift of 
tongues, provided order be observed. 

V. 36. This is not to be restricted to the regulation con- 
cerning women (Meyer), but refers to all, the points touched 
upon in the discussion of spiritual gifts. The Corinthians 
acted as if they had originated the Gospel or were the only 
Christian Church; that is, as if the Gospel took its colouring 
from local influences and were not broad as humanity itself 
nor destined to survive nationalities. It may be questioned 
whether they asked the Apostle’s advice as touching the 
spiritual gifts, and this is suggested by the manner in which 
the subject is introduced in xii. 1 and by this verse. 

V. 37. δοκεῖ, “if any one thinks that he is,” etc. Cf. note 
on ii. 18; viii. 2. 

πνευματικός, “or in any other way possessing spiritual 
gifts.” Cf. note on xii. 1. Similarly in xiv. 1 πνευματικά is 
generic, including prophecy, and is not to be restricted to the 
gift of tongues. For ἤ thus joining a specific and a generic 
notion cf. iv. 3. 

ἐπιγινωσκέτω, pres., “let him understand thoroughly ” 
(ἐπι-), “let there be no mistake touching this matter ;”’ not 
“let him acknowledge.” Cf. xiii. 12. 

ὅτι Κυρίου ἐστιν ἐντολή On the attraction of the subject 
of the dependent clause into an accus. after the principal verb 
cf. xvi. 15 and note on iii. 20. Ἐντολή is omitted in D, 
and in Origen and Ambrosiaster (a strong argument, that the 
two have it not, in favour of the omission). The various 
reading ἐντολαί (Vulg.), adopted by Reiche and De Wette, 
tells in the same direction. The meaning does not require 
the word. But as 8 AB have it, it must be retained. So 
Treg., Westc. and Hort. 

Κυρίου, not Πνεύματος, because the Apostle’s’ spiritual 
authority was conferred upon him, not by a subjective in- 
fluence, as in the case of the gifts bestowed on the Corinthians, 
but by a direct revelation of Jesus Christ.  Thongh both are 
of God, the latter has this excellence that it is unmistakable 
and confers apostleship. The founding of Churches and 


384 TIIE FIRST EPISTLE TO TiIE CORINTHIANS. 


prescribing their ritual did not devolve on the Corinthian 
prophets in virtue of their possessing the gifts which they 
had. The contrast between St. Paul’s assertion of a claim to 
apostolical authority and the repeated disavowal of any such 
authority by Ignatius, and in the Epistle of Barnabas, is re- 
markable. Cf. Ignat., Ad Ephes.3; Ad Trall.3; Barn., Hp. 4. 

V. 388. ἀγνοεῖ. This word is used in allusion to ἐπιγινώ- 
σκεται, but it implies here wilful ignorance, as in Rom. 11. 4, 
that is, a refusal to acknowledge the Apostle’s authority. 

ἀγνοείτω is the reading of B, ἀγνοεῖται of 8 Ὁ. A is doubt- 
ful. Vulg. has “ignorabitur.”” Reiche and Meyer defend 
ἀγνοείτω, Lachm., Tisch., Westc. and Hort hesitatingly read 
ἀγνοεῖται. If the fut. indic. is adopted, the meaning must be 
that which Ambrosiaster gives: “he will be unacknowledged 
in the day of judgment, when the Lord says, Verily I say 
unto you, I know you not.” ‘This covert allusion to the judg- 
ment of Christ is pertinent. He that refuses to hear Christ’s 
Apostles refuses to hear Christ Himself and incurs His dis- 
pleasure. 

Vv. 39,40. A summary of the results of the whole dis- 
cussion; comprising, first, the superior worth of prophecy ; 
second, the toleration of ecstatic utterance ; third, the necessity 
of order. 

V. 39. τό is used with λαλεῖν to make the notion of speak- 
ing with tongues more definite. 

V. 40. εὐσχημόνως expresses the ethical beauty of variety 
in unity, while κατὰ τάξυν means that every member has his 
own place, by his keeping which that ethical beauty of the 
Church is realized. Τάξις is a military term used metapho- 
rically. Cf. Chrys., Hom. 10 on 1 Thess, v. 14; Aug., De Civ. 
Dei, XIX. xiii. 1: ‘ Ordo est parium dispariumque rerum sua 
cuique loca tribuens dispositio.” 


SEVENTH DIVISION. 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. 
(xv. 1-58). 


We are not told who they were that in the Corinthian 
Church denied the doctrine of the resurrection. The word 
τινές (ver. 12) intimates that they were comparatively few ; 
but it suggests also that the Apostle himself had no precise 
knowledge of the men and their positive teaching. That they 
were not Jewish Sadducees, as Origen (Comm. in Matt. p. 118) 
and Calvin maintain, is evident. The Sadducees were mate- 
rialists and denied the existence of soul or spirit as a substance 
distinct from body. Cf. Acts xxiii. 8, where their denial of 
the resurrection is connected with their denial of the existence 
of angel and spirit. According to Josephus (Antig. XVIII. 
i. 4) the Sadducees believed that the soul ceases with the body. 
That men holding these views, who had joined their bitterest 
enemies to persecute Christ for teaching the contrary, should 
be members of the Church in Corinth is incredible, espe- 
cially when we bear in mind that this Church had been 
gathered by the force of a common belief in Christ as a living 
Saviour, whose resurrection they believed to have taken place: 
and whose second coming they were waiting for. Other Jews. 
would be the more disposed for this very doctrine of the 
resurrection to embrace Christianity. It vindicated their 
position as against the Sadducees. The narrative in the 
Book of Acts shows that in some measure it reconciled the 
Pharisees, while it exasperated their opponents. 

On the contrary, the more thoughtful and religious men 
among Greeks and Romans could not but stumble at the 
doctrine, and that the more readily in proportion as they were 

385 σᾳ 


386 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


attracted by the spiritnal side of Christ’s teaching. If what 
Plato had said was true, that the body is a prison and a tomb 
(Gorg. p. 498), then our true uprising will take place at death, 
and the resurrection of the body from the grave would be 
nothing better than a second descent of the soul into its grave, 
The best men and the worst do not return into the body. 
Wicked tyrants, like Ardizus, are not permitted to enter again 
on a state of probation, but are driven to their endless punish- 
ment in Tartarus; and, on the other hand, “the soul that has 
practised death all her life long is now finally released and for 
ever dwells in the company of the gods.” We need not seek 
to reconcile this thonght of Plato’s with his belief in trans- 
migration. For neither is that belief any approach to the 
Apostle’s doctrine of a resurrection. That the soul should be 
again born to live on earth in another body is not St. Paul’s 
conception of the change through which the body itself will 
pass from corruptible to incorruptible, from natural to spiritual. 
In fact no doctrine of Christianity’ appears to have evoked 
more stubborn opposition and more contemptuous scorn. Cf, 
Tert., De Prescr. Her. 7. In the time of Origen (C. Cels. V. 
22) some who called themselves Christians denied the doctrine 
of the resurrection. 

Why, then, we may ask, does St. Paul defend it so vehe- 
mently and even place it in the forefront of his ministry? 
Why should he not admit that a belief in the immortality of 
the soul is sufficient to inspire a Christian with the sublimest 
hopes of the gospel? The answer must partly be sought in 
dhe fundamental contrast between the highest pagan idea of 
man and that which mects us in the teaching of Christ and 
Tlis apostles. In Plato the body is the antithesis of the soul, 
as the source of all weakness is opposed to what alone is 


capable of independence and goodness. St. Paul does not - 


recognise this contrariety. | With him sonl is not, as in Plato, 
prior to body. He, we cannot doubt, would have rejected 
Plato’s doctrine that the body is related to the soul as the 
actual to the ideal, inasmuch as the body also has an ideal 
of perfection which it will at length attain. Neither would he 
have said, with Aristotle, that the soul itself is that ideal or 
entelechy of the body. He teaches in common with Plato 
that body and soul are distinct substances; but he would also 





THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—xv. 1-58. 887 


agree with Aristotle that they do not subsist independently 
of one another. Soul is not prior to body, but neither can it 
survive the body. Even when separated by death, they are 
not less than before parts of the man and continue to exist in 
some kind of interdependence. The New Testament says 
nothing on the philosophers’ problem of the soul’s immor- 
tality. Not a trace of the arguments of the Phedo can be 
detected in St. Paul’s Epistles. But he teaches a nobler doc- 
trine—that an endless life awaits men after death, a life in 
which body as well as soul will at the last partake. 

This conception is closely connected with the Apostle’s 
Christology or, we should rather say, springs out of 10. The 
Son of God is become man. The spiritual has entered into 
human history and transformed the development of the race 
into a realization of Divine ideas. Nature even is endowed 
with supernatural and endless possibilities. Without the 
doctrine of the incarnation the Apostle’s sublime idea of the 
resurrection would have been a mere play of the imagination, 
He would either have sunk to the low level of the gross 
materialism of Parsees and Jews, or else—what is more prob- 
able—have flung all such earthly notions to the winds and 
accepted the spiritualizing doctrine of Plato, thus sacrificing 
his grand conception of the consecration of all things created 
to the service of Christ. St. Paul’s central doctrine was the 
union of men through faith with the living Christ, who is the 
quickening Spirit. In virtue of this union body and soul 
remain, though locally separated through death, in personal 
union with one another; and, as the life-giving omnipotence 
of Christ raises the life of the soul into the higher life of the 
spirit, so it changes the body, through a resurrection, from 
psychical to spiritual. Thus the doctrine of the incarnation 
gives a new and startling significance to our bodily existence 
and the entire course of nature, while it floods with light the 
darkness of death. 

From this we are led to expect that the Apostle’s discussion 
of the subject will turn on his conception of Christ’s person ; 
and such is the fact. That Christ is now living in a human 
body; that this Christ is a life-giving Spirit: these are the 
opposite but mutually dependent ideas around which the main 
thoughts of the chapter gather. In fact the Apostle’s argu- 


888 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ment is an expansion of the words of Christ: ‘‘ He that eateth 
My flesh and drinketh My blood hath eternal life, and I will 
raise him up at the last day” (John vi. 54). Cf. Iren. iv. 18 
(34) 5: πῶς THY σάρκα λέγουσιν εἰς φθορὰν χωρεῖν Kai μὴ 
μετέχειν τῆς ζωῆς, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώμωτος τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ τοῦ 
αἵματος αὐτοῦ τρεφομένην; Irenzeus errs only in saying 
“ flesh ” instead of ‘ body.” 

First of all, the Apostle declares that his gospel rested on 
the facts of Christ’s death and resurrection, which are proved 
to be facts by eye-witnesses (vv. 1-11). Now the denial of 
the resurrection of the dead involves our denying the resurrec- 
tion of Christ (vv. 12-19). For if there is no resurrection of 
the dead, then (1) the Gospel is void of content and, conse- 
quently, the apostles are deceivers; and (2) the Gospel is 
proved to be ineffectual, and faith has no result, But in these 
negative arguments the Apostle only clears the ground for the 
direct proof. The resurrection is necessary in order that the 
subjection of all things to Christ and ultimately to God, in 
the Christian order, may be brought to pass (vv. 20-28). As 
a corollary to this the Apostle appeals to the consistency (1) of 
those that baptize for the dead (ver. 29) and (2) of such as 
undergo suffering for the name of Christ (vv. 380-33). The 
digression closes with an urgent call to the Corinthians to live 
righteous lives. In all this there is really but one positive 
argument for the doctrine of the resurrection, which is that 
the man Christ Jesus is the source of life. He is the first- 


fruits of them that fall asleep. He is the new covenant-head ~ 


of the race; in Him wan is exalted to the kingly authority 
for which God designed Him over all created things; to 
Him, as God-man, every power, not excepting death itself, 
is subjected. Not a word here of the immateriality and con- 
sequent indissolubleness of the soul. The Apostle desires to 
encourage men who from fear of death are all their life-time 
subject to bondage, and Christ Jesus is the only anchorage of 
man’s faith and hopes. 

St. Paul proceeds to meet the difficulties that surround the 
subject when we try to anderstand the manner of the resur- 
rection (vv. 35-55). He prepares the way by showing the 
_ possibility of it from the analogy of the seed and the grain (vv. 
85-38), and the physical difference of kind between one body 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—xXvV. 1. 389 


and another (vv. 39-44). But he offers here again only one 
positive reply to the objector’s questions, “ How are the dead 
raised? With what body will they come?” It is found 
in the contrast between the first and the second Adam, and 
in a new revelation concerning Christ as the ideal man, the 
pattern of the future body, who ought (φορέσωμεν) to be the 
pattern also of our morality and goodness. Such an argument, 
it is evident, can be addressed, and, indeed, has reference only 
to the Christian. Silence reigns in this discussion over the 
destiny of the wicked. The key to the whole argument is the 
refrain of triumph at the close. The resurrection of the dead 
is more than an event, it is the final moral victory won for 
man by our Lord Jesus Christ. 


A. That the Gospel which the Apostle preached rested on the 
facts of Christ’s death and resurrection: facts proved by eye- 
wit wesses. 


το ἀμ 4 


V.1. Γνωρίζω cannot be synon. with ἀγγέλλω, “1 an- 
nounce”? (De Wette, Meyer), nor with ἀναμιμνήσκω, “1 
remind ” (Theod., Gicum., Theophyl., and among recent ex- 
positors, Heydenreich, Olshansen, Osiander), nor does it com- 
bine both meanings (Chrys.), “announcing again by remind- 
ing them of what has been announced before.” It means “to 
explain the nature and import of the Gospel.” Cf. John xvii. 
26; Rom. ix. 22, 23. What the explanation is the Apostle 
tells us in tive λόγῳ εὐηγγελέσάμην and the following verses. 
In fact the Apostle is introducing in the word γνωρίζω, after 
his discussion of the spiritual gifts, a magnificent example of 
his own exercise of the gift of prophecy. 

τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, “the Gospel,” in its entirety; not merely the 
truth of Christ’s resurrection (Cyr. Al., Herveeus, Riickert). 
The resurrection of Christ is the explanation of the entire 
Gospel. It is the key that unlocks the doctrines, which with- 
out it are incredible and unmeaning. 

His own and his reader’s relation to the Gospel is more 
clearly defined in four statements, which are intended to show 
its unique character and paramount importance. J'irst, he 
is about to explain the nature of a message that formed the 


390 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


staple of his ministry among them, and any Gospel that does 
not rest on the fact of Christ’s resurrection is not a Gospel. 
Second, he is about to explain that which they themselves 
received as Gospel, and faith that does not rest on Christ’s 
resurrection is vain (as in ver. 14). Third, he is about to 
explain the truth in which they still stand, and on which the 
stability of their Christian character rests; and the strongest 
incentive to moral greatness and spiritual force is the resurrec- 
tion of Christ. Fourth, he is about to explain the source of 
their hope of rising slowly into possession and fruition of that 
spiritual and eternal life which flows from a living Saviour. 
In short, the ministry, faith; character, salvation—these are 
the prominent landmarks of a Gospel, the central truth of 
which is the resurrection of Christ. 

παρελάβετε is restricted by De Wette to the fact of their 
having heard the Gospel, as in 1 Thess. 11. 13 (but not Phil. iv. 
9). But this would make it tautological after εὐγγγελισάμην. 
Cf. John i. 11. 

ἑστήκατε does not mean here precisely what it does in Rom. 
v. 2. This and the other verbs have in the present passage 
an ethical signification. It is important to keep in mind that 
the Apostle could not have said “ye stand,” unless those who 
denied the resurrection of the dead believed in the resurrec- 
tion of Christ. 

σώζεσθε. The ethical import of the word is lost if, with De 
Wette, Meyer, etc., we regard the pres. as expressing only a 
certain future. The believer’s salvation began when he first 
hoped in Christ. Cf. Rom. viii. 24, ἐσώθημεν, and Eph. ii. 8. 

V. 2. Many expositors connect tiv, λόγῳ εὐηγγελισάμην 
with εἰ κατέχετε, “if ye hold fast with what discourse I 
preached to you,” making this the conditional clause to δι᾿ οὗ 
σώζεσθε. But this identifies the Gospel with the λόγος of 
the Gospel, whereas the Apostle distinguishes between them, 
as the external form which the glad tidings assumed and in 
which the offer of salvation is conveyed is distinguished from 
its substance (τὸ εὐαγγέλεον τὸ εὐαγγελισθὲν ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ, Gal. 
i. 11). This λόγος is the declaration of the historical fact 
of Christ’s resurrection. By preaching this fact the Apostle 
makes known the Gospel, the life and soul of the fact. 
Besides, the Corinthians could not be said to be saved by 





THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—xXvV. 1, 2. 391 


holding fast in their minds with what discourse the Apostle 
preached to them; and the words cannot mean “the discourse 
with which I preached.” The clause must be connected with 
γνωρίζω. Revised Version: “ [ make known, I say, in what 
words I preached it unto you.” But the plur. “ words” is 
not a felicitous rendering, as it tends to hide the idea of the 
“form” of the Gospel as distinguished from its “ matter.” 

εἰ κατέχετε, that is, he makes known the nature of the 
Gospel by declaring Christ’s resurrection, on the supposition 
that they hold fast the Gospel. Their denying a future resur- 
rection makes him doubt that some of them had a firm hold 
of the Gospel itself. ‘‘ Adeo non erit Christianus qui eam [the 
resurrection of the dead] negabit,” says Tertullian (De Resurr. 
Carn. ui.). This doubt in the Apostle’s mind is not inconsistent 
with the words, “in which ye stand.” He does not doubt 
their spiritual condition. Their lapse has not yet passed the 
limit of a lax hold of truth. 

ἐκτὸς ἐπιστεύσατε. Nheod., Calvin, De Wette, Van Hen- 
gel, etc., rightly consider this to be a conditional clause to 
κατέχετε, “and surely you do hold fast the Gospel, unless 
your faith has been from the first a vain and unreal one.” 
The Apostle softens down the harshness of the supposition 
that they did not hold fast the Gospel, by adding that such a 
supposition could only be true if they had become Christians 
hypocritically, which is a supposition that need only be men- 
tioned in order to be rejected. Alford thinks the Apostle is 
supposing the objective nullity of that on which their faith was 
founded. Εἰκῆ will then mean “ without sufficient reason,” 
and the clause will be conditional to σώζεσθε, “ ye are saved, 
unless the Gospel is a fable.” But σώζεσθε is too far to be 
thus connected. 

εἰκῆ in class, Greek means “‘ at a venture,” “ inconsiderately.” 
It will admit of this meaning in the New Test. also, except 
in Gal. iv. 11, where it must mean, as Chrys. explains it, “ in 
vain.” Hesych., εἰκῆ, μάτην ἢ ἀκαίρως ἢ ὡς ἔτυχεν. There 
is a similar transition of meaning in the Euglish word “ vain.” 

ἐκτὸς εἰ μή. Cf. note on xiv. 5. 

ἐπιστεύσατε, “became believers.” Cf. note on iii. 5. 

Vv. 3,4. yap, “that is to say.” The Apostle states the 
fact which forms the λόγος or vehicle of his Gospel. 


392 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


V.3. παρέδωκα. Cf. note on xi. 2. He declared that a 
certain event had taken place. It is not that he had received 
the διδασκαλία from the Lord,—the teaching which was based 
on the fact (as Theod. expiains it). 

ἐν πρώτοις, not “among the chief doctrines” (Grot., Estius, 
Hammond, De Wette, etc.), nor “from the first”? (Chrys., 
Hofmann), but “among the things to be stated first.” The 
facts are the foundation, the “ prima fidei capita” (Bp. Bull), 
οἱονεὶ θεμέλιος πάσης τῆς πίστεως. Cf. iii. 10. Similarly 
Ignatius says, ἐμοὶ δὲ ἀρχεῖά ἐστιν ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστός, τὰ ἄθικτα 
ἀρχεῖα ὁ σταῦρος αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁ θάνατος καὶ ἡ ἀνάστασις αὐτοῦ 
καὶ ἡ πίστις ἡ δι’ αὐτοῦ (Ad Philad. 8). 

παρέλαβον. Cf. note on xi. 29. He had himself received 
it from the Lord Jesus in order to deliver it as the Lord’s 
message to the world. The word expresses the historical truth 
of the facts, but it intimates also their inner meaning, which 
is that they convey Christ’s message of salvation to the Apostle 
himself and through him to others. This he could not have 
understood and would not have accepted on the ground of 
tradition. The doctrine of the cross was so repugnant to him 
before his conversion, that nothing less than the appearing of 
Christ to him on the road to Damascus gave him an insight 
into its meaning. Pfleiderer’s notion that the persecutor 
expected to see the risen Messiah is quite untenable. 

ὑπὲρ τῶν duaptiov. Cf. Heb. v.1; Gal.i. 4. In Heb. v. 3 
περί is the true reading. Elsewhere ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν. But the one 
expression explains the other. The Apostle might have used 
ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν in the sense of “for our behoof;” but he could 
vot have said ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁμαρτίων, if Christ’s death were only 
an example of self-deuial,not because ὑπέρ must be rendered 
“instead of,’ “in loco,’ but because the reference to sin 
involves with ὑπέρ the notion of expiation. Indeed περὶ 
ἁμαρτίας in LXX. means a sin offering (cf. Lev. v. 11; vii. 
37). The words are a distinct statement of the doctrine that 
Christ’s death was a propitiatory sacrifice for sin; and the 
occurrence of such a statement in this place proves that in 
the Pauline presentation of the Gospel this import of Christ’s 
death constituted an essential aspect of the Gospel. Cf. i. 17; 
li. 2; Gal. 1}. 1; Rom. iv. 25. Christ’s life had an ethical 


meaning in its obedience, and that obedience was perfected in 


THE RESURRECTION OF TIE DEAD.—XvV. 8, 4. 393 


his death. Cf. Rom. 111. 34. The word ὑπέρ expresses the same 
notion as τιμῆς in vi. 20. Cf. τὸ πάσχα ἡμῶν, v. 7. Here, 
therefore, as in 2 Cor. v. 21, ὑπέρ is synon. with ἀντί. So 
Pfleiderer, Paulin. p. 102; Baur, Neutest. Theol. pp. 158, 159. 
Cf. Iren., Adv. Her. Ν. 1, ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν. 

ἀντὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων σαρκῶν. 

κατὰ τὰς γραφάς. Cf. Luke xviii. 31; xxiv. 25-27. In 
Acts viii. 30 sqq. direct reference is made to Isa. lili. as a 
prophecy of Christ’s death. Before Jesus was put to death the 
' disciples did not understand that the Messiah must die; after- 
wards they seem to find to their surprise that the notion of a 
suffering Messiah was in the minds of the Old Testament seers. 
That the statement of fact made by the apostles corresponds 
to what prophets foretold confirms, therefore, the truth of the 
Apostle’s report, unless the apostles were deceivers. The 
Corinthians would know that the disciples had not been led to 
say that Jesus had risen from having previously understood 
the sayings of the prophets to refer to Messiah’s death and 
resurrection. 

V. 4. ἐτάφη. Cf. Acts xiii. 29. The repetition of the 
words “ according to the Scriptures ” in the next clause seems 
to show that the Apostle does not refer to any prediction of 
the burial. Theodoret cites Isa. lvii. 2, “he entereth into 
peace,” as a prophecy of Christ’s burial; and it is far from 
improbable that by “ peace”? in this verse is meant the still- 
ness of the grave. Why does the Apostle make separate 
mention of the burial? In order, says Calvin, to certify the 
reality of His death. This is true. Even Ignatius (Ad Smyrn. 
2) speaks of certain persons who said δοκεῖν αὐτὸν πεπονθέναι. 
Thus early did a tendency to docetism manifest itself. But 
the reference to the burial certifies also the reality of His 
resurrection. For on the third day the sepulchre was empty, 
as Schenkel and Renan admit. Strauss feels so keenly the 
force of this argument for the fact of the’ resurrection, that, 
in order to evade it, he denies that Jesus was buried, and 
suggests that the body was cast into the receptacle into which 
the bodies of criminals were after their execution usually 
thrown. But on such a supposition it is simply impossible 
to account for St. Paul’s belief in the burial of Jesus. Joseph 
of Arimathea only availed himself of the provision of the 


394 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Roman law by which relatives or friends might be allowed 
to take the bodies of criminals for burial. To suppose that 
no one asked permission to bury the body of the great 
Teacher is hard indeed. 

ἐγήγερται. The perf. expresses that Jesus was now alive 
after His resurrection. The distinction made by Grot. be- 
tween ἀναστῆναι and ἐγείρεσθαι, “to rise from a fall” and 
“to awake from sleep,” must not be pressed. In later Greek 
ἐγειρεῖν sometimes contains no allusion to sleep. 

τῇ τρίτη. That Jesus rose on the third day is admitted 
by Strauss to have been a “ primeval and definite ” assertion 
of the earliest apostles; and, if Paul says the “third” day, we 
may be sure it was the belief also of the other apostles. But 
on this point Strauss virtually abandons his vision theory. 
The apostles, it seems, fixed on the third day because they 
found it so declared in the Old Testament prophecies. It was 
the result of deliberate agreement and conscious fraud. But 
could they have palmed off this falsehood on Paul? Or was 
he also a party to the fraud? Elsewhere Strauss proposes 
another explanation. He supposes three days to have been 
a typical expression for a short time. But this does not 
account for the expression “on the third day,” which can 
mean nothing else than the next day but one (cf. Luke xiii. 
32). Add to this that it is very questionable if any prophecy 
refers to the time. Christ gave no “sign” of it except the 
very obscure sign of the prophet Jonas. 

κατὰ τὰς γραφάς. Cf. Ps. xvi. 9, 10, words which Peter 
(Acts ii. 25-28) and Paul (Acts xiii. 35-37) argue to be a 
prophecy of Christ’s resurrection, inasmuch as they were not 
fulfilled in the case of David. In Acts xiii. 33 the Apostle 
cites Ps. 11. 7 probably as a prophecy of the same event, though 
some good expositors think ἀναστήσας refers to the incarna- 
tion, Cf. Isa. lv. 3. 

Vv. 5-8. The Apostle passes to ‘the evidence for the truth 
of Christ’s resurrection. ‘The risen Jesus was seen by trust- 
worthy witnesses, and this had already formed part of the 
Apostle’s testimony at Corinth. These verses were written 
within twenty-five years after the date of the supposed event. 
The Apostle Paul declares that these witnesses affirmed that 
they had seen Jesus after His resurrection. This is fatal to 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—xXv. 4-6. 895 


the theory that the resurrection of Jesus is a myth gradually 
gathering around His memory. So stupendous a myth could 
not have formed and crystallized before the date of this Epistle, 
still less before the arrival of Paul in Corinth. 

V. 5. ἄφθη Κηφᾷ. Cf. Luke xxiv. 34, ὥφθη Σίμωνι. 
The names Simon, Cephas, Peter seem to have been used 
indiscriminately (cf. Gal. ii. 7,9). St. Paul heard that Peter 
had seen the Lord from Peter’s own lips (cf. Gal. i. 18). If 
Peter did not tell the Apostle during that visit that he had 
seen the risen Jesus, it is quite impossible to account for 
Paul’s believing it to have been the fact. If Peter did tell 
him, then the statement of St. Paul that a brother apostle 
declared that he had seen the Lord brings us almost to the 
time of St. Paul’s conversion. 

τοῖς δώδεκα. D has ἕνδεκα, Vulg. undecim, a correction 
made, we may suppose, because Judas could not have been 
present. Origen (Contra Cels. II. 65), Chrys., Theophyl. 
think Matthias is included. But there is no difficulty in 
understanding “the Twelve” to be a designation of the 
Apostolic coilege, in the same way as “the Hleven” in 
Athens meant a body of officers, and in supposing the desig- 
nation was retained because the number was symbolical, as 
Augustine observes (De Oons. Evang. III. p. 25). At any 
rate the notion of a “glorious company of apostles” is not 
a later importation, though we must wait till the time of 
Ignatius (dd Mayn. 6) before we meet with the name συνέδριον. 
τῶν ἀποστόλων. In the catalogues of the second century St. 
Paul himself is excluded from the inner circle of the Twelve. 

V. 6. From the indirect he changes to the direct con- 
struction. Cf. Luke ν. 14; Actsi.4. But these appearances 
formed part of the Apostle’s παράδοσις no less than the 
previous ones; for he could not have omitted to say that he 
himself had seen the Lord. 

ἐπάνω, an ady., as in Mark xiv. 5, and having no influence 
on the case. Chrys. says that some rendered ἐπάνω by ἄνω 
ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν. Peter Martyr and Semler accept this. But 
to express this ἄνωθεν would have been used, and with the 
numeral the notion of “more than” is natural. In class. 
Greek ἐπάνω has neither of these meanings. 

ἐφάπαξ. Theod., ὁμοῦ πᾶσιν, Vulg. simul. So most ex- 


396 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


positors. But as the word nowhere else has this meaning, 
Bretschneider (Lex.) and Van Hengel are, I think, justified 
in rendering it “once.” The risen Jesus appeared to some 
of the apostles more than once; but once He appeared to 
over five hundred brethren. This appearance is not mentioned 
elsewhere. It may have been the meeting with the brethren 
in Galilee announced by Jesus to the women (cf. Matt. xxvii. 
10). It must have been after the day of Pentecost, when the 
disciples numbered a hundred and twenty. 

μένουσιν means more than ζῆν or εἶνα’ (against Valcken.). 
Cf. the imitation of the passage in Herm. Past., Vis. LI. 5, 


« \ r e \ ” ᾿ 
οἱ μὲν κεκοιμημένοι οἱ δὲ ἔτι ὄντες. Nor does it mean merely | 


to ‘‘ survive,” as the word is paraphrased in Eus., Hist. Eccles. 
I. 12, τοὺς πλείους δ᾽ ἔτι TH βίῳ καθ’ ὃν καιρὸν αὐτῷ ταῦτα 
συνετάττετο περιέναι. The word μένω looks back to the de- 
parture of Christ from among His brethren and forward to 
His second coming; so that it includes the notion of “re- 
maining,’ as in John xii. 34, and that of “ waiting,’ as in 
John xxi. 22, μένειν ἕως ἔρχομαι. It has, therefore, a pathetic 
force, as in Soph., Trach. 176, εἴ με χρὴ μένειν, where cf. 
Campbell’s note. 

ἐκοιμήθησαν. The mention of the fact that some of the 
five hundred had died is a touch of nature, but it is more, 
These men had faced death in the hope of a resurrection 
through the resurrection of Christ. The expression ‘ fell 
asleep’ refers to the calm hope in which they died. ‘The 
aor. expresses, not merely their condition, but also their 


feeling: “they went to sleep.” Their death was, if possible, 


a stronger evidence of belief in the truth of their testimony 
than the living witness of those that remained. That κοιμᾶσθαι 
does not denote the unconscious state of the disembodied 
spirit (Usteri, Pfleiderer, etc.), but is a metaphor for the state 
of the body after death is undeniable, if the Apostle believed 
that immediately at death the Christian is “at home with the 
Lord” (2 Cor. v. 8). 

V. 7. Ἰακώβῳ, most probably James the Lord’s brother 
(so Hus., Hist. Hecles. I. 12), not James the son of Zebedee, 
after whose death the Lord’s brother is called James simply. 
Cf. Birks, Hore Apostolice, p. 198. In Gal. i. 19 it is said 
that Paul.had seen James, who must have told him that he 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—XyvV. 6, 7. 397 


had seen the risen Lord. In the case of James, therefore, as 
well as of Peter, we have St. Paul’s word for the early date of 
a testimony for the truth of Christ’s resurrection. From the 
fact that in John vii. 5 the Lord’s brethren are spoken of as 
unbelievers, and in Acts i. 14 as disciples, some have inferred, 
on insufficient grounds, that the appearing of Jesus to them 
after His resurrection convinced them of His Messiahship. 
His appearing to James is not mentioned in the canonical 
Gospels. But the apocryphal “ Gospel according to the 
' Hebrews” (Jerome, De Vir. Illustr. 2) records a vow made 
by James after the last supper that he would not eat bread 
until he should see Christ risen from the dead. After His 
resurrection, the story goes on, Jesus took bread and blessed 
it and gave it to James the Just, saying, “ My brother, eat 
thy bread, for the Son of Man is risen from those that sleep.” 
This “Gospel according to the Hebrews” is certainly one . 
of the most ancient of the apocryphal Gospels. It is cited 
by Origen (In Johan. p. 64), Clem. Alex. (Strom. II. p. 453 
Potter) and, according to Jerome, by Ignatius (Ad Sinyrn. 3). 
We have here a piece of evidence confirming the Apostle’s 
statement in the only Gospel accepted by the Hbionites, who, 
be it remembered, regarded Paul as an apostate from the 
law and rejected his Epistles. It is true the Apostle and the 
Ebionite Gospel do not assign the occurrence to the same 
date. But this inconsistency, being a proof of independence, 
adds to the value of this twofold evidence for the fact. James 
was called “the Just” by Jews as well as Christians (cf. 
Origen, Contra Cels. I. 47). No man less likely to have been 
deceived or to have deceived ! 

τοῖς ἀποστόλοις πᾶσιν. There is not much to help us in 
deciding whether ἀπόστολος is here used in the narrower 
range of meaning, of the Twelve only, or whether it includes 
the Seventy or others (Chrys., Theod., Meyer). It has the 
narrower meaning in ver. 9, and here it is natural to suppose 
that the reference is to witnesses of Christ’s ascension. Cf. 
Acts i. 10. Whether St. Paul includes James among the 
apostles or not, it is impossible to say. It happens that the 
same uncertainty hangs over every other passage in which 
James is named with the apostles. Cf. on the question 
generally Bp. Lightfoot on Galatians, p. 95. 


398 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Ver. 8. ἔσχατον δὲ πάντων, that is, “last in point of time 
of all that have seen the risen Christ.” "Eoyatov is an adv. 
Cf. Mark xii. 22, where ἔσχατον πάντων is the true reading. 
Cf. Matt. xxii, 27, ὕστερον πάντων. Ignatius, however, 
seems to have considered it an adj. Cf. Ad Rom. 9, οὐδὲ yap 
ἄξιός εἰμι, ὧν ἔσχατος αὐτῶν καὶ ἔκτρωμα. De Wette is 
surely mistaken in making πάντων neut., and Meyer in re- 
stricting it to apostles. It means that the Apostle Paul was, 
and it is probably intended to intimate that he still is and 
will be, the last on earth to see the risen Lord. The apoca- 
lyptic vision belongs to another category. 

ὡσπερεί occurs nowhere else in the New Test. The word 
is mentioned by Longinus among the μειλίγματα τῶν θρασέων 
μεταφορῶν, and so it is here. 

τῷ ἐκτρώματι. Ambrosiaster and Cicum. make ἔκτρωμα 
synon. with ὕστερον γέννημα, as if it referred to the fact of 
the Apostle’s having been called last. This is rejected by 
Theophyl. “Extpwya can only mean “an abortion.” But in 
what sense can the Apostle give himself this name ? Omitting 
absurd explanations (such as that of Augustine, that it refers 
to his short stature), the following are worthy of consideration. 
(1) Theod., Est., Lightfoot (Hor. Heb.), Beng., De Wette, 
Meyer, Alford thus: “ As unworthy to be called an apostle 
as an abortion is to be considered a man.” This view is 
strongly supported by the next verse, and the words are bor- 
rowed, evidently in this sense, by Ignatius (ut sup.). (2) Her- 
veeus, Calvin, Peter Martyr, Grotius, Heinrici thus: “An 
apostle whose conversion was sudden and violent.” ‘This 
view expresses much more fully the notion which may naturally 
be supposed to lie in the metaphor generally. But it labours 


under the difficulty that reference to the suddenness and vio- - 


lence of his conversion has but a slight and distant connection 
‘with the Apostle’s testimony concerning Christ’s resurrection. 
(3) Severian (Cat.) and in effect Hofmann thus: “ All the 
others who had seen the risen Lord were apostles or at least 
brethren; Paul, on the other hand, had not yet arrived at the 
ripeness of the spiritual birth, but saw Jesus before his con- 
version.”  Heiurici objects that this view ignores the connec- 
tion with the following verse. This may be met by saying 
that it is not as least of the apostles, but as the persecutor 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—XvV. 8,9. 3899 


of the Church of God that he designates himself an abortion. 
The strongest argument in favour of this view is the pertinence 
of the notion to the Apostle’s present purpose. Here we have 
the evidence of an enemy to the truth of the resurrection. 
But the metaphor is not a natural one, if it refers only to his 
former condition. - He would have called himself a persecutor 
or an enemy; but “abortion” must refer to some kind of 
change of condition. On the whole we must accept the first 
explanation. 

ἔκτρωμα occurs in Aristotle and later writers. The class. 
word is ἄμβλωμα. Cf. Lobeck, Phryn. p. 108. 

τῷ, “the only one,’’ among all that had seen the risen 
Jesus. 

ὦφθη cannot mean a vision (Van Hengel, Strauss) ; for it 
must have the same meaning in this and the previous verses. 
As it is intended to be a proof of the resurrection of Christ, 
it must denote that He was seen with the bodily eyes in true 
humanity. It is true that the Apostle claims to have received 
visions and revelations. But his evident reluctance to speak 
of them is in striking contrast to the eagerness with which 
he repeatedly boasts of having seen the Lord. Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 
1, 5-8. 

Of the twelve (or thirteen) recorded appearances of Jesus 
after His resurrection, the Apostle here mentions six. 

Vv..9,10. A digression referring to his apostleship and 
apostolical labours (cf. ix. 1-3). But the verses prove also 
the truth of the description which the Apostle has given of 
himself as the ἔκτρωμα, and connect the success of his min- 
istry with the doctrine he preached, viz., the resurrection of 
Christ. 

V.9. ἐγώ, emphatic predicate: ‘ Who is the least of the 
apostles ? It is I.” 

yap. He calls himself an abortion because he persecuted 
the Church of God; and the consequence of his having been a 
persecutor when Christ appeared to him is that he is still the 
least of the apostles. On ἐλάχιστος cf. Eph. 11. 8. 

ὅς (-- ἐπεὶ ἐγώ). This causal use of ὅς, more freq. ὅς ye, as 
in Rom. viii. 32, occurs sometimes in class. Greek. Cf. Soph., 
Hd. Col. 866; Plat., Rep. p. 402. 

ἱκανός usually differs from ἄξιος as the notion of sufficiency 


400 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


or fitness to doa thing differs from the notion of moral worthi- 
ness to be permitted todo it. Cf. 2 Cor:ii. 16; ii. 5; 2 Tim. 
1. 2, But when the capacity to act consists in a certain moral 
condition of mind and heart, ἱκανός and ἄξιος may be used 
interchangeably. Compare Matt. 111. 11 with John i. 27. So 
here. 

καλεῖσθαι, that is, “to be known in the capacity of an 
apostle.” 

Θεοῦ. Cf. note on xi. 22. 

V.10. While he is himself unworthy to be an apostle, the 
grace of God has made him—he will not say the greatest or 
most faithful of the apostles—he will express his meaning in 
a truism, has made him what he is. A truistic proposition 
may express pride, as in Pilate’s words, “ what I have written 
I have written,” or, as here, humility. 

ἡ εἰς ἐμέ. “H must be retained from δὶ A B, though D omits 
it. He does not mean that the grace of God had been effec- 
tual in its operation upon him, but that, having been effectual 
towards him personally, it had also been effectual through him 
in its saving influence on others. Cf. 1 Pet.i.10. The grace 
meant is his own salvation, not merely his apostleship, as in 
iii. 10. He constantly represents the power of his ministry as 
the effect of his strong and deep spiritual life. 

κενή, “‘ without effect.” Cf. Phil. ii. 16. His superabun- 
dant toil was the effect of grace. 

περισσότερον, not an adj. (De Wette), but an adv., and 
synon. with περισσοτέρως, as in 2 Cor. x. 8; Heb. vii. 15. 
The word is an allusion to the assertion of his judaizing de- 
tractors, that he was behind (ὑστερήηκεναι) the chief apostles. 
Of). 290 or. xi, 5s xa: 11, 

αὐτῶν πάντων. I see no objection to the view of De Wette 
(doubtingly), Meyer, Osiander and Van Hengel that he means 
all the other apostles together. Even this would not be an 
exaggeration. Cf. Rom. xv. 19; 2 Cor. xi. 23; Clem. Rom, 
Ad Cor. 5, ὑπομονῆς γενόμενος [Paul] μέγιστος ὑπογραμμός. 

ἐκοπίασα, not “I suffered” (Chrys., Theophyl.), but “TI 
toiled.” Cf. note on i. 8. 

οὐκ ἐγὼ dé. Grotius is certainly a bad exegete when he 
renders these words, “not I only, but the grace of God also.” 
It is true that the grace of God was with him; but it is also 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—xXv.9-11. 401 


true that without the grace of God he was nothing. Grace at 
once made him something and co-operated with him; in the 
words of the Tenth Article, grace ‘ prevents us that we may 
have a good will, and works with us when we have that good 
will.” Cf. note on iii. 9. 

The ἡ before σὺν ἐμοί is omitted in NBD and rejected by 
Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. The meaning is 
practically the same. 

V. 11. He returns from the digression and lays down the 
inference which must be drawn from the evidence of Christ’s 
resurrection and from the Divine power of his own ministry. 
Ody refers to both things, to vv. 5-8 and to vv. 9,10. The 
inference is that he and the other apostles preached the 
same Gospel of the resurrection and the Corinthians became 
Christians by accepting Christ’s resurrection as the funda- 
mental truth of the Gospel which they received. The verse is 
inconsistent with the Tiibingen theory and, as Irenzeus (ii. 
13, 1) observes, with what is virtually an early anticipation 
of that theory by Marcion. For the identity between the 
Apostle’s Gospel and that of the older apostles must include, 
not only the fact of Christ’s death and resurrection, which 
alone would be no Gospel, but the meaning of that fact. The 
apostles must, according to St. Paul, have preached that 
Christ “died for our sins,” which the Tiibingen writers cor- 
rectly declare to be an essential doctrine of Paulinism. The 
men who “preached another Jesus and another Gospel” 
(2 Cor. xi. 4) at Corinth cannot, therefore, have been au- 
thorised to do so by any apostle. Cf. Pfleiderer, Paulin. 
p: 310. 

ἐπιστεύσατε. The change from the pres. κηρύσσομεν to. 
the aor. ἐπιστεύσατε suggests that the Corinthians were be- 
ginning to waver somewhat in their belief in the resurrection 
of Christ. ἙἘσαλεύοντο (Chrys.). It is this incipient doubt 
that made it necessary for the Apostle to prove the fact. Still, 
the aor. may mean “it was by believing this that ye became 
Christians.” Cf. note on iii. 5. At any rate, Theod. Mops. 
is not justified in saying that the Corinthians held Christian 
doctrines in appearance only, but in reality maintained con. 
trary opinions. 


DD 


402 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


B. The Denial of the Resurrection of the Dead involves our 
Denying the Resurrection of Christ. 


(12-19). 


If there is no resurrection of the dead, Christ is not risen. 
If Christ is not risen, then, first, the Gospel is unreal; apostles 
have nothing real to preach, Christians nothing real as object 
of their faith (vv. 13, 14), and as a corollary it follows that 
the apostles are deceivers (ver. 15); second, the Gospel, even 
if we grant that it is real, is weak, and faith has no results 
(vv. 16-19). 

V. 12. The argument is stated. The Apostle does not in 
this verse enter on the proof. “ An admission of Christ’s 
resurrection is inconsistent with a denial of the resurrection 
of the dead.” 

The form of the clause “if Christ is preached that He has 
been raised from the dead ”’ is noteworthy. It is not synony- 
mous with “if the resurrection of Christ is preached.” It is 
not simply the attraction of the subject of a dependent clause 
into the principal clause, as in xiv. 87; Mark xii. 34. Christ 
‘Himself is preached. The statement concerning His resur- 
rection is the form under which that Gospel is presented. Cf. 
mote on ver. 2. 

πῶς ; “qui factnm est ut?” Cf. Gal. ii. 14. So in class. 
‘Greek, e.g., Plat., Phileb. 50, πῶς οὐ μανθάνομεν ; “ How is it 
‘come to pass that ?”’ etc. 

τινες may mean “some whom I could name.” Cf. note on 
ἅν. 18. Perhaps, however, it means here “‘some whose names 
I do not know, and of whose positive teaching I am in ignor- 
ance.” Cf. ver. 6. In any case it implies that they were not 
many. Were they the “few wise men”’ of i. 26? 

V. 18. If their denial of the resurrection of the dead rests 
on a preconceived notion that it is impossible for dead men 
to come to life again, then it is impossible that Christ, who 
‘certainly died, can have risen from the dead. 

εἰ. .. οὐκ ἔστιν. The use of ov, rather than μή, is 
explained by De Wette to be occasioned by the close con- 
mection of οὐ with ἔστιν, “if it isa non-entity.” Itis more 


matural to account for the use of od by the fact that the 


Pi ae Ser Se =. 2 


ee 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—xv. 12-15. 402 


Apostle is citing the words of an opponent. Cf. note on 
ver. 14. 

V. 14. εἰ οὐ, not μή, because the Apostle is giving an- 
other’s words: “if, as some allege, Christ has not been 
raised.” This is better than to suppose ov was required 
because of an antithesis between the conditional clause and a 
virtually negative apodosis in κενόν (as Buttmann, N.S. p. 298 
suggests). 

κενόν, “empty,” “void of content.” If Christ has not died 
for our sins and risen for our justification, the message of the 
Gospel has no objective truth in fact. “ Phantasma erit totum 
᾿ quod speramus a Christo.” ‘Tert., De Carne Christi 5. It 
ceases, therefore, to be a message (κήρυγμα) and becomes a 
speculative doctrine (φιλοσοφία), which, in the case of a 
religion designed to save men, is nothing better than a κενὴ 
ἀπάτη, a hollow deception (Col. ii. 8). Christianity becomes 
an unreal system of notions, like other phantoms of the 
theatre, if it is not an interpretation of facts. Faith also is 
no more faith; for faith must act on an external fact and a 
living person. Cf. Rom iv. 14. Similarly it is said in 1 Pet. 
i. 3 that the resurrection of Christ makes hope a living hope 
—a hope raised from death. 

ἄρα, “then really,” “the fact is, however some may gloze 
over 10. Of. Gal. iii, 29; Heb. xii. 8. On κήρυγμα cf. note 
on i. 23. 

V. 15. It will follow that the apostles are deceivers. This 
inference is not co-ordinate with that of vv. 13, 14, but a 
corollary to it. If Christ is not risen, Christ’s apostles are 
convicted of lying, and that in the name of God. The sup- 
position that the apostles were under a delusion is nowhere 
mentioned in the New Test. (cf. 2 Cor. iv. 2). In our day no 
man would call the apostles impostors. ‘Those that deny the 
fact of Christ’s resurrection accept the theory of Spinoza (lp. 
25, “ipsos evangelistas credidisse Christi corpus resurrexisse 
et ad coelum adscendisse, . . . in quo tamen, salva evan- 
gelii doctrina, potuerunt decipi”’), that the apostles were under 
a strange hallucination in believing honestly what had never 
taken place. The absence of all reference to the possibility of 
unconscious self-deception has been ascribed to the peculiar 


psychology of the age. Cf. Pileiderer, Puwlin. p.13. But if 


494 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


Greek philosophy means anything, it means that the deliver 
ances of the senses are a principal source of delusions; and 
if we come down to a time not much later than that of the 
Apostle, Celsus has anticipated Strauss in describing the 
appearance of Jesus after His alleged resurrection as a phan- 
tom flitting before the disciples’ eyes, and in speaking of Mary 
Magdalene as a γυνὴ πάροιστρος (cf. Orig., Contra Cels. ΤΙ, 
59; VIII. 35). But Celsus is compelled to eke out his 
theory by saying that Jesus was Himself a deceiver and 
magician. Pfleiderer argues, further, that the delusion was 
unavoidable in the case of Paul because he was already 
possessed by the idea of a suffering and triumphant Messiah. 
Unsatisfactory as this hypothesis of Strauss is in reference 
to St. Paul, it is even more unaccountable that the other dis- 
ciples, who, according to Pfleiderer, believed in Jesus “ in 
spite of the cross,” should have laboured under the delusion. 
They at least cannot be supposed to have thrown their own 
images on the surrounding mountain-mist and confounded 
them with the gigantic form of arisen Christ. If Christ did 
not rise from the dead, His disciples must have been de- 
celvers. 

εὑρισκόμεθα. The view of the older critics that εὑρίσκομαι 
is used in the sense of εἶναι is not now held by lexicographers. 
But the apostolic Fathers use it without any emphasis on the 
notion of “finding” and, therefore, virtually as synon. with 
εἶναι. Cf. Ignat., Ad Eph. 10 and 11. In this verse, how- 
ever, it is certainly not synon. with εἶναι, but means empha- 
tically “we are beginning to be found ont.” Cf. note on iv. 
2; Rom. vii. 10; 2 Cor. xi. 12; 1 Pet. ii. 22, “no deceit was 
detected after eager search.’’ Class. writers would probably 
use καταλαμβάνω or even λαμβάνω (Plat., Gorg. p. 473). The 
meaning is helped by the use of the pres. tense: “we are 
beginning one after another to be found out.” 

Ψευδομάρτυρες τοῦ Θεοῦ. The apostles were God’s wit- 
nesses, sent by Him to testify to what they had seen. But, 
if Christ did not rise from the dead, then they abuse their 
high prerogative and utter in God’s name what they know to 
be untrue. Θεοῦ is subjective genit. 

ἐμαρτυρήσαμεν, a pure aor., regarded from the time at 
which the falsehood of their testimony is detected. 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—xv. 15-17. 405 


κατά has occasionally the neutral meaning, “ concerning.” 
Cf. Dem., Phil. 11. p. 68, καθ᾽ ὑμῶν ἐγκώμιον. But this 
meaning is not found in the New Test. The apostles were 
sent to testify for God, ὡς ἐκ Θεοῦ, κατέναντι Θεοῦ (2 Cor. 
ui. 17). If Christ was not raised, their testimony was a de- 
hberate falsehood and, consequently, against God, whom they 
professed to represent. The words are virtually equivalent to 
ψεύδεσθαι κατὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ (Xen., Apol. 13). Cf. Mark xiv. 56; 
James iii. 14; [gnat., Ad Trall.10, καταψεύδομαι τοῦ Κυρίου. 

εἴπερ, an emphatic “if,” increasing the uncertainty of the 
opponent’s allegation. Cf. Hermann, Ad Vig. p. 834. 

ἄρα implies that the Apostle is stating the opinion of others, 
not his own: ‘‘if really, as you say.” Cf. Stallbaum’s note 
to Plat., Rep. p. 358. 

νεκροί, not οἱ v., because the supposition is that death in 
its very nature involves the impossibility of a resurrection. 
The supposition is formally stated in ver. 16. Hence also the 
pres., not the fut.: “if we maintain that dead men cannot 
come to life.’ Cf. Thuc. III. 65, εἰς ον ewayoueba.. . 
ἀδικοῦμεν, “if we fought, we admit we should have been 
guilty of having wronged you.” In ver. 52 we have οὗ νεκροὶ 
ἐγερθήσονται, ‘ the dead will as a fact rise.” But νεκροὶ οὐκ 
ἐγείρονται is the same thing as ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν οὔκ ἐστιν, 
ver. 13. Buttmann (N.S. p. 78) has shown the incorrectness 
of Winer’s statement (Gr. § XIX. 1) that νεκροί is usually 
anarthrous in Greek writers. 

Vv. 16-18. A second (or, including the corollary imme- 
diately preceding, third) consequence of denying the resurrec- 
tion of Christ will be the uselessuess of the believer’s hope. 
‘This also is introduced with a formal declaration of the con- 
nection between the denial of the resurrection of the dead 
and denial of the resurrection of Christ. 

V.17. Nota repetition of the inference drawn in ver. 14. 
The Apostle intentionally makes a distinction between κενός 
and μάταιος, between the absence of reality and the loss of 
future results.2 The former involves that the Gospel is not 


i In Lidd. and Scott’s Ler. under this head are placed Plat., Apol. 37 B and 
Prot. 323 B; but in both passages the context requires the meaning “ against.” 

2 The distinction is not always observed. Cf. Soph., El. 331, θυμῷ ματαίῳ μὴ 
χαρίζεσθαι κενά, 


406 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the wisdom of God, the latter that it is not the power of God. 
Now the results of Christ’s death are comprised im “ our 
justification ” (Rom. iv. 25); so that the words “ye are yet 
in your sins” will mean that their sins are not forgiven and 
that they are not justified through faith in Christ. The 
Apostle always represents Christ’s resurrection, not merely 
as ‘the proof that His death was accepted by God” (Words- 
worth), but as part of His redemptive work. In the Epistle 
to the Romans St. Paul takes for granted that Christ is risen, 
and from His resurrection proves that justification is through 
faith; in our Epistle he assumes that man is justified through 
faith, and shows that this involves the truth of Christ’s resur- 
rection. ‘To be in sin” includes much more than “to have 
sin;”? it means that sin is the sphere of the man’s whole 
moral being. It is the opposite of “being in Christ” and 
corresponds to St. John’s expressions “ being in darkness,” 
“in the world,” “in the evil one.” Cf. John viii. 24. 

V.18. Not only believers that are alive are still unjustified, 
but those who died im faith in Christ have perished. The 
Apostle adds this because dying in faith was the Christian’s 
greatest triumph; for it meant certain conviction that Jesus 
Christ was Lord of the dead as well as of the living (Rom. 
xiv. 9). His resurrection was a conquest over death, not a 
mere escape from the bonds of death. The Apostle wrote 
at the time when the first generation of Christiav believers 
were gradually dying off. The great majority of those that 
had seen the Lord still remained, but some had fallen asleep. 
Milton imagines the dismay of Adam at the first sight of 
death. Great must have been the triumphant joy of those 
who first witnessed the victory of dying Christians. It is not 
unlikely that the Apostle’s conversion began in the influence 
of the first Christian martyr’s peaceful end. He had seen 
“how a Christian can die.” The thought of Stephen and 
James the son of Zebedee having perished in their sins, if 
it could not convince the gainsayer, appealed with irresistible 
force to Christians. 

dpa. Of. note on ver. 14. Whether dpa can stand at the 
head of a clause in class. Greek is a debated question. 

of κοιμηθέντες ἐν Χριστῷ is an instance of an epithet with- 
out the article being used with a subject that has the article. 


7) 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—xv. 18,19. 407 


Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 16, of νεκροί ἐν Χριστῷ. But there is some 
difference in meaning. Οἱ κοιμηθέντες of ἐν Χριστῷ means 
“those who have fallen asleep and are in Christ ;” οἱ κοι- 
μηθέντες ἐν Χριστῷ means ‘those whose sleep is a sleep in 
Christ.” Cf. 1 Tim. vi. 17, τοῖς πλουσίοις ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι, 
“those whose wealth is a wealth in this world.” Cf. Thue. 
IT. 62, τὴν τόλμαν ἀπὸ τῆς ὁμοίας τύχης ἡ ξύνεσις ἐκ τοῦ 
ὑπέρφρονος ἐχυρώτεραν παρέχεται. 

ἀπώλοντο, aor., “ perished” in the act of falling asleep, as 
they thought, in Christ. Cf. ver. 6. There is no allusion 
to the large number who had fallen asleep in Corinth as a 
chastisement for unworthy behaviour at the Lord’s Supper. 

V.19, He sums up the sad condition of the Christians, 
“if the dead rise not.” 

ζωῇ, here used for βίῳ of the period or condition of life, 
not in its more strictly correct meaning, the principle of life. 
It is here “ vita quam vivimus,” not “ qua vivimus.” Cf. 
Luke xvi. 25; Heb. vii. 3; Herm. Past., Mand. 3, ἐν τῇ ἐμῇ 
ζωῇ ; and so occasionally in class. Greek, e.g. Arist., th. Nie. 
I. 10, ῥοπὴν τὴς ζωῆς, “ of one’s condition.” 

ἠλπικότες ἐσμεν, “ we have set our hope and continue to 
hope.” Cf. Bernhardy, W. S. p. 878. So in John v. 40. 
Similarly of πεπιστευκότες (Acts xv. 5) is synon. with of 
πιστεύοντες (Acts 11. 44), and τοῖς ἠγαπηκόσιν (2 Tim. iv. δ) 
with τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν (1 Cor. ii. 9). 

ἐν Χριστῷ must be placed before ἠλπικότες, as in δὲ ABD. 
The position of μόνον is decisive against the rendering “in 
this life only” (Vulg., in hae vita tantum). So Tert., De 
Resurr. 24, “in isti tantum vité;”? and so Chrys. evidently 
understood it. But μόνον clings to the verb even when it 
belongs to the other words as well. Cf. Matt. xiv. 36. We 
need not, therefore, confine its reference to ἠλπικότες (Nean- 
der): “if we hope only, without ever seeing the fulfilment 
of the hope.” Μόνον qualifies the whole clause: ‘if in this 
life we have hoped in Christ, and if that is all.” 

ἐλεεινότεροι, “ most pitiable.” So Rev. Vers. excellently. 
The notion is apparently, not that the Christians are the most 
wretched of men as being ever exposed to danger and death 
(Alford and most expositors), but that they are most to be 
pitied as men whose vast hopes are doomed to bitterest disap- 


408 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


pointment. But a difficulty meets us. Will not the Christian 
love goodness even if there is no life after death? The 
answer is twofold. first, love of goodness is not the same 
thing as happiness. He who loves goodness most may be the 
worthiest object of pity. The conception of an ideal happiness, 
in its nature absolute and independent of place or time, is 
foreign to the Apostle’s practical thought. He must add, with 
Aristotle (ἢ. Nic. I. 7), ἐν βίῳ teXe(@—in a complete life. 
Instead of αὐτάρκεια, “ self-sufficiency,” St. Paul speaks of a 
sufficiency from God (2 Cor. ii. 5), and a power to do all things 
through Christ. Remove, therefore, the living Christ aud the 
entire edifice of Christian joy falls to the ground. Second, the 
Apostle teaches that goodness itself is the fruit of those peculiar 
gifts which God bestows only through the death and resurrec- 
tion of Christ. The highest conceivable form of “ hoping 
in Christ only in this life” would be the imitation of His lite 
on earth, without justification, without forgiveness, without 
the indwelling of Christ in the soul. But this, according to 
St. Paul, is an impossible attainment. The effort to attain it 
would result only in knowing Christ after the flesh, not after 
the Spirit that informed and ennobled even His earthly life, 
and in imitation of the outward appearance without possessing 
and being possessed by the inward power. The strange ab- 
sence from the Apostle’s teaching of reference to the life of 
Jesus as the ideal life and to the Christian course as an imita- 
tion of it is inexplicable, if he does not represent the risen, 
living and glorified Christ Jesus as the source of all moral 
goodness. We know Christ after the flesh no more. Even 


His life on earth is transformed into a supernatural life by ᾿ 


the reflection upon it of the life in heaven. The Lord is the 
Spirit. 

ἐλεεινότεροι. For the comparative apparently in the sense 
of a superlative cf. note on xili. 13; Matt. xiii. 32. 


C. Direct Proof: The Resurrection of the Dead necessary 
that the Christian order of the subjection of all things to Christ 
may be realized. 

(20-34). 

The resurrection of the dead is necessitated by the relation 

in which Christ stands to the redeemed and to God. This 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—xvV. 19. 409 


relation is determined by the great Pauline conception of a 
series of subordinations, a conception that has already more 
than once in this Epistle formed the basis of important theo- 
retical and practical deductions (cf. i. 21--23; xi. 3). The 
true moral order of things consists in their right subordina- 
tion. There is no τάξις without a ὑπόταξις. The lower 
terms of the series vary according to the nature of the case. 
In one instance the apostles are the last term, in another the 
woman, and here again all creation. But the highest terms 
are always the same, Christ and God. In the Apostle’s 
present argument all things are subordinated to man, man 
is subordinated to Christ, Christ is subordinated to God. This 
threefold subordination must be realized in facts, that God 
may become actually what He necessarily is by native right 
aud inalienable prerogative, all in all. For in relation to man 
Christ is king; in relation to God Christ is subject. Man 
is subject to Christ because Christ is subject to God. But 
this kingship of Christ is brought to pass, not by power, but 
by union. Christ is become man, yea, the man. As Adam 
was the first man, Christ is the second man. ‘The relation of 
Adam to his offspring is not in these verses further explained. 
But we are told that it is the source of death to the race, as 
in Rom. v. also we are said to have died in Adam because in 
Adam we sinned. The race is, in a true sense, one man; 
or, to use the term which the federalist divines placed in 
the fore-front of their theology, Adam is our covenant-head. 
Now Christ, in virtue of His incarnation, is the new head of 
humanity, and the fruit of this union is life through faith, 
This headship exists, not provisionally and for the sake of 
making it possible for Christ to be an atonement through 
death, but permanently, as the only adequate realization both 
of God’s conception of man and of Christ’s subordination to 
God. Life is, therefore, the sum of all the results of the new 
covenant. The resurrection of the dead is’part of the media- 
torial work of Christ, and on His accomplishing this work Ὁ 
depends His kingship over man as the vicegerent of God. 
- Moreover, if the kingly authority of Christ proves the resur- 
rection of the dead, so also does His subjection to His Father, 
which is not a legal fiction, but the realization of the Father’s 
prerogative that God shall be all in all. The resurrection of 


410 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


the dead is a victory over an enemy and a winning of hu- 
manity to God. 

The Apostle keeps closely to this conception and its bearing 
on the truth of the resurrection. All other though kindred 
questions are thrust aside, such as the nature of our relation 
to Adam, the coming in of the fulness of the Gentiles, the en- 
grafting of the wild olive tree, the millennium and the final 
doom of the wicked. It is worthy of note that the early 
writers, such as Pseudo-Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Metho- 
dius, who held the doctrine of a resurrection of the flesh, 
make no use whatever of this the Apostle’s most weighty 
argument, 

V. 20. Christ’s resurrection having been proved by wit- 
nesses and the denial of it shown to be the destruction of 
hope, the Apostle connects Christ’s risen life with the resur- 
rection of the dead, 

ἐγένετο must be omitted, asin NA BD. So Lachm., Tisch., 
Treg., Westc. and Hort. Amupy) τῶν κεκοιμημένων will be, 
not indeed in apposition to Χριστός (Meyer), but an explana- 
tory predicate. Cf. ἔχθρος, ver. 26. ‘The comma after νεκρῶν 
is better away: “ Now Christ has been raised from the dead 
as the first-fruits of them that have fallen asleep.” His re- 
surrection is not a solitary occurrence, affecting only Himself. 
It is the resurrection of the head of a new humanity and a 
pledge, therefore, of the resurrection of the dead. 

νυνὶ δέ, “but now as things are,” atqui, introducing the 
statement of a fact. Cf. Rom. iii. 21. 

ἀπαρχή, “ first-fruits.” Humanity is as the terebinth and 
oak of which, after felling, a stock remaineth, and the holy 
seed of Christ is that from which the new life shoots. He 
is the first sheaf carried into God’s temple, and God’s accep- 
tance of the first sheaf is a sure pledge of harvest. The 
metaphor of the first-fruits and the other metaphor of ‘the 


first-born from ὑπὸ dead” (Col. 1. 18) mean, not only that: 


Christ is prior in point of time, but also that He is the earnest 
of the resurrection. How He is the earnest is told us in the 
following verses. The final consummation will be attained 
when the Son is subjected to the Father and God is all in 
all. But the first step in this development of the ages is the 
resurrection of Christ; and it resembles the last. For His 


a. 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—XvV. 20-22. 411 


resurrection no less than His final action as Mediator is a 
dedication of Himself and of humanity to God. This is 
symbolized in the offering of the first-fruits of harvest to the 
Lord. Most expositors in these days deny that any allusion 
to the presentation of the first sheaf of the barley harvest 
before the Lord is intended by the Apostle. Hesychius ex- 
plains ἀπαρχή by πρῶτος. Grimm (Lew.) says the Schol. on 
fur., Orest. 96, paraphrases ἀπαρχή by τὸ πρῶτον τῇ τιμῇ. 
But all this deprives the Apostle’s words of their naturalness, 
beauty and force. Chrys. thinks the reference is to the first 
sheaf; and the idea is admirably put by Cox, The Resurrection, 
pp. 62, 88. The resurrection of others, such as Lazarus, which 
occurred before the resurrection of Christ, ought to present no 
difficulty. They returned into their mortal life to die again. 
Christ rose into the spiritual life, which cannot die. 

τῶν κεκοιμημένων. Cf. notes on ver. 6 and ver. 51. 

V. 21. Christ’s resurrection is the pledge of the resurrection 
of men inasmuch as He is the cause of it. From the metaphor 
of the first-fruits, which implies only an emblem of God’s 
blessing on humanity, the Apostle passes to the source of the 
blessing, and this he finds in the unity of the race under 
one head, even Christ. As death came through the oneness 
of the race in a man, so also the resurrection of the dead is 
through man. But ἐπειδή means much more than resemblance 
(Krauss), and more than fituess or congruity. It expresses 
the necessity that there should be a new head of the race and 
an organic centre of life. The necessity arises from our need 
of redemption. Because through one man sin came into the 
world, through union with a new source come redemption 
and through redemption life. Cf. Rom. v. 12. 

ὁ before θάνατος must be omitted, as NA BD. 

V. 22. In ver. 21 he has argued that the resurrection must 
be through man. Now he adds that so in fact itis. The man 
through whom as head of the race comes death is Adam; the 
new head of humanity and the new source of life is Christ. 

πάντες . . . πάντες. That the former πάντες comprises 
all men cannot be denied, and Van Hengel is not justified in © 
restricting its range of meaning to believers, who will be made 
alive in Christ. It is a much more difficult question whether 
the second πάντες is equally extensive. Chrys., Theod., Am- 


412 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


brosiaster, Calvin, Meyer, De Wette, Olshausen, etc., think it 
is; Augustine, Estius, Grotius, Bengel, Riickert, Hofmann, 
Heinrici, etc., confine it to believers. The key to the whole 
paragraph is the notion of Christian subordinations, in which 
only believers, who are in union with Christ, are included. In 
relation to those that sleep Christ is the first-fruits. But it 
cannot without manifest harshness be said that Christ is the 
first-fruits of those who perish; neither can they be said to 
rise ἐν Χριστῷ, in mystical union with Christ (against Ols- 
hausen and Meyer). They are among the enemies (Phil. iii. 
18), whom Christ will put under His feet. Moreover, the 
analogy between Adam and Christ must include more than 
physical death and a physical quickening, and more than “the 
two natures we have in us even before we believe, the worse 
and the better self we have contending in us for the mastery ” 
(Cox, ut sup. p. 73). For death and life in St. Paul’s theology 
mean perdition and salvation, and men are saved by faith. 
In accordance with this the Apostle says in Rom. viii. 11 that 
our mortal bodies shall be made alive through the indwelling 
spirit of Christ Jesus, which cannot be said of the unbeliever. 
There is no real unfairness in considering the former πάντες 
to be more extensive than the latter, if we bear in mind that 
the conditions of entrance into the one class and the other 
are totally different. They are not stated here. But we have 
them in Rom. vi. 5-11, where the Apostle seems as if he 
anticipated this objection to the analogy which he has insti- 
tuted between Adam and Christ. Both alike are heads of 
humanity. But they are unlike in this (as also in other 
things, Rom. v.15), that men are in Adam by nature, in Christ 
by faith. 

Origen (De Prine. i. 6), De Wette, Neander, Krauss, Grimm 
(Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol., Vol. XVI. pp. 380 sqq.) have inferred 
from the words “all shall be made alive” that the Apostle 
teaches the doctrine of a final restoration of all, which some of 
them explain to be the meaning of ἀποκατάστασις τῶν πάντων, 
Acts ii. 21. But this is inconsistent with what the Apostle 
subsequently says of the subjection of all things to Christ, 
and the putting all things under His feet, besides that it is 
inconsixtt with 2 Thess. 1.9; Acts xxiv. 15. 

ἐν, not synon. with διά (Eecum., Erasm., Grot.), which would 





THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—XvV. 22, 23. 413 


make this ver. almost a repetition of ver. 21; nor merely 
denoting the possession of a common nature (Alford), which 
would be true of us in relation to all men; much less signi- 
fying only “by following the example of Adam and Christ” 
(Van Hengel); but expressing union, in the one case a union 
of covenant only, in the other a mystical union of person and 
life (cf. Eph. i. 10). Nothing can be inferred from this verse 
in favour of either the Traducian or the Creation theory. 

V. 23. He now states explicitly the doctrine of the Christ- 
ian series of subordinations as it manifests itself in the cir- 
cumstances of the resurrection from the dead. God—Christ 
—Men. These are the terms of the series, this the place of 
each term in the series. Christ is the connecting link between 
men and God. He acts as man’s representative when He 
rises from the dead, and He presents to God those whom He 
has raised. . 

τάγματι, properly a passive noun meaning “an arranged 
thing; hence it is often used as a military term for “a 
regiment or troop of soldiers.” But it is a mistake to sup- 
pose it has not also the meaning of “ grade,” that is, the dif- 
ference between one company and another. Cf. Clem. Rom., 
Ad Oor. 37, where ἕκαστος ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ τάγματι means “ each 
in his own grade,” whether captain of a thousand or captain 
of a hundred. Similarly Theophyl. on 1 Cor. vii. 20 uses the 
word: ἐν οἵῳ βίῳ καὶ ἐν οἵῳ τάγματι Kal πολιτεύματι, that is, 
rank, social position. Τάγμα is related to τάξις as the place 
of each term of a series is related to the series. The word 
ἕκαστος includes the three terms of the Christian series—God, 
Christ, Man. Each of them occupies his own place in the 
economy of the resurrection and judgment. The word really 
contains the main thought of the paragraph. Heydenreich, 
Riickert, De Wette, Maier, etc., consider τάγμα to be synon. 
with τάξις in the sense of sequence only in time. But there 
is not, I believe, an example of this meaning. Tertullian (De 
Reswr. Curw, 48) explains it of order of merit. Theod. and 
Cicum. think it means that the good are to be raised among 
the good, the wicked among the wicked. But all these ex- 
planations do not bring the word into the main stream of 
the argument. As these events are the final acts in the 
development of Christ’s mediatorial kingdom, the Apostle 


414 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


connects them with Christ. The first act is the resurrection 
of Christ; the next His second coming, when those who are 
Christ’s will be raised; the third will be the delivery of the 
kingdom to God the Father. 

ἔπειτα, “after this’? (= μετὰ τοῦτο, as in ver. 6). Cf. John 
xi. 7. He does not say that the one event follows the other 
immediately, nor does he say how soon it will follow. The 
answer to the question “ when??? God has kept to Himself. 
Cf. Acts i. 7. 

οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, “ they that are Christ’s,” not as being His 
work (Chrys. on iii. 21, Theophyl., Gicum.), nor His followers 
in the days of His flesh, but the subjects of Christ the me- 
diatorial King. It is the subordination still. None but true 
Christians have this designation of being Christ’s (against 
Meyer). Cf. Rom. vii. 11; Gal. v.24. They are “ the dead 
in Christ,’ 1 Thess. iv. 17. 

ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ αὐτοῦ, not merely “at the time of His 
coming ” (as in Matt. xix. 28, ἐν τῇ παλυγγενεσίᾳ), but also 
“involved in” (Alford), “as the result of.” The parousia 
is certainly the second coming. The Vulg. renders it gui in 
adventu ejus crediderunt, as if the Apostle meant to say that all 
who believed in Christ in the days of His flesh will rise from 
the dead before other believers. So also Schéttgen (Hor. Heb. 
p. 662), Van Hengel. But the word παρουσία is not in the 
New ‘Test. used of the incarnation, not even in 2 Pet. i. 16. 
It is so used in the early Fathers, 6.6., Ignat., Ad Philad. 9. 
Hence the phrase ἡ δευτέρα παρουσία. Cf. Just. M., Dial. 6. 
Tryph. 52, προεφητεύθη ὅτι δύο τοῦ Χριστοῦ παρουσίαι 
ἔσονται. Cajetan thinks the words distinguish those who will 
be true Christians at Christ’s coming from such as will then 
prove themselves to have been hypocrites. But this is already 
implied in οὗ τοῦ Χριστοῦ. The words denote the power that 
will raise the dead and change the living. That Christ rose 
Himself as first-fruits is not enough to transform the present 
into the new, spiritual mode of existence. His second coming 
also is necessary. 

V. 24. The next act is the last, that Christ should deliver 
the kingdom to God. 

εἶτα, not “at that time,” but “after this,” as in vv. 7, 24. 

τὸ τέλος. The word occurs thus absolutely also in Matt. 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—XvV. 23, 24. 415 


xxiv. 6, 14; Mark xii. 7; Luke xxi. 9; and in these passages 
it means the end of the present αἰών, synon. with συντέλεια 
αἰῶνος (Matt. xiii. 39, 40, 49), which, again, is the end of all 
things (1 Pet. iv. 7), when the day of judgment is come. This 
is in accordance with the belief of the Jews, who taught that 
one αἰών or series of αἰῶνες ends at the coming of Messiah 
(cf. Heb. ix. 26) and another at the day of judgment (cf. 
Bertholdt, Christol. Judeor. p. 119). It does not, therefore, 
signify here either the end of the Gospel dispensation and 
of the divinely instituted means of salvation (Grot., Billroth, 
etc.), or the end of the eschatological events (De Wette), or the 
end of the resurrection (Theod., @icum., Beng., Meyer). Τῇ 
it meant any one of these, something would have been added 
to τέλος. 

ὅταν cannot be explanatory of τέλος, “the end consists in,” 
ete. It denotes the time when the end comes. 

The received reading παραδῷ is defended by Reiche and 
Heinrici, because it must have been read by the authors of 
the oldest Latin Versions, the Itala and Vulgate, as well as by 
Greek and Latin Fathers (tradiderit), especially as it is found 
in Origen, Tertullian and Ambrosiaster. But δὲ AD read 
παραδιδῷ, Β παραδιδοῖ, which is adopted by Lachm., Tisch., 
Treg., but Westc. and Hort adopt παραδιδῷ. One of these 
two forms must be accepted. But παραδιδοῖ also is, not opt., 
but subjunctive from παραδιδόω. Cf. Mark iv. 29; xiv. 10,11; 
John xii, 2; in all of which Treg. and Westc. and Hort read 
mapacot. Cf. Buttmann, N.S. p. 40. It follows that the end 
is simultaneous with the delivering the kingdom to God the 
Father; and this again takes place when Christ has destroyed 
all rule and put all enemies under His feet. The inference is 
that τέλος signifies the end of the mediatorial kingdom οὗ. 
Christ. God’s purpose in subordinating man to Christ has 
been accomplished. The versicle ‘‘ of whose kingdom there 
shall be no end” is taken from the salutation of Gabriel to 
Mary (Luke i. 33). But no inference can be fairly drawn 
from it on the theological question. The words διαμένοντα 
βασιλέα καὶ θεὸν eis τοῦς αἰῶνας occur in the Arian Creed of 
the Council held at Antioch a.p. 341. Words of like import 
are incorporated in the Creed of Cyril of Jerusalem, a.p. 350, 
and afterwards in the enlarged form of the Nicene Creed, 


416 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


cecumenically adopted at Chalcedon, a.p. 451. Cf. 2 Pet. 1. 
11; Rey. xi..15. 

τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρί, “to God the Father.” But καί is, not 
“ even,” but “and: ” “to Him who is God and Father.”? As 
God He is the source of all authority over Christ and over 
men; as Father He is the source of their being. As He is God, 
it is right the kingdom should revert to Him ; as He is Father, 
Christ and men will rejoice in delivering the kingdom to Him 
who is Love. This combination of Θεός and Πατήρ without 
the genit. ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ is of some weight in favour of join- 
ing these genitives, when they do occur, with the Θεός as well 
as with the Πατὴρ. 

καταργήσῃ, sc. ὁ Χριστός, the subject of παραδιδοῖ, not 4 
Θεός, as it is understood by Bengel and Van Hengel. The 
aor. denotes that the καταργεῖν takes place before the kingdom 
is delivered to God. 

ἀρχή, “rule;” ἐξουσία, “authority ;” δύναμις, “ power.” 
A comparison with Rom. viii. 38; Eph. 1. 21 ii. 10; Col. 1. 
16; 1 Pet. iii. 22, proves that these words signify different 
orders of angels, a conception which we find in the pre-exilic 
books of the Old Test. But whereas the Old Test. designates 
the angels for the most part by means of attributives (e.g., 
“tho shining ones,” Hzek. i. 4), St. Paul uses abstract names, 
under the influence of Philo, who formed his angelology by 
combining the Platonic theory of ideas with Jewish notions. 
The angels are in Philo the personification of Divine ideas, 
Cf. De Somn. p. 638, Vol. I. Mang., ἀθανάτοις λόγοις, ods 
καλεῖν ἔθος ἀγγέλους. But the Apostle gives no further 
account of the angelic orders. All we can infer is that ἀρχή 
signifies the highest, ἐξουσία a lower, and δύναμις a still 
lower rank; and that these distinctions are true of the fallen 
no less than of the holy angels. Here it is evident from ver, 
25 that he refers to evil angels. Cf. Eph. vi. 12, where the 
. apyatand the ἐξουσίαι are connected with ‘the spiritual hosts 
of wickedness.” So Chrys., Theod., etc. On the other hand 
Calvin explains the words to mean “ lawful powers ordained 
by God;”’ Grotius, ‘‘the empires of the world ;” Riickert, De 
Wette, Osiander, Meyer, “all adversaries of Christ of every 
kind.””?’ The most unnatural explanation is that of Olshausen, 
that all sovereignty, even the sovereignty of the Son Him- 
self, is meant. 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—xXvV. 24,25. 417 


V. 925. The reign of Christ has already begun, inasmuch as 
all things are in course of being subjected to Him, either of 
their own free choice, or else by the exercise of His constraining 
power. A kingdom is implied in the words οἱ tod Χριστοῦ. 
De Wette and Pileiderer (Paulin. p. 265) wrongly date the 
beginning of Christ’s reign from the second coming. Cf. 
Mark xvi. 19; Eph. i. 19-23. Alford is still more mistaken 
in saying that Christ is not king before the τέλος arrives. [ 
it were so, the first act of the king would be to deliver the 
kingdom to God. This verse means that Christ reigns until 
He has put, after long protracted warfare, all enemies under 
His feet, The reign of Christ, therefore, is not a millennium 
of peace, but a perpetual conflict ending in a final triumph. 
Cf. Zech. xiv. 17-19. 

δεῖ expresses the necessity that arises from the fitness of the 
Christian order of subordinations. 

ἄχρις οὗ. NABD omit ἄν. So in Rom. xi. 25; Gal. iii. 
19. Cf. note on xi. 26. It is inserted in Ps. cix. (cx.) 1, 
which verse the Apostle is here citing. 

θῇ, sc. ὁ Χριστός. So Chrys., Riickert, Meyer, De Wette, 
etc. Beza, Grotius, etc., consider ὁ Θεός to be subject. But 
putting all enemies under His feet and destroying death is 
the final victory of Him who destroys all rule and authority 
and power. Christ’s mediatorial reign will close when He 
shall have put all enemies under His feet. 

αὐτοῦ after ἐχθρούς is omitted in NBD. Ahasit. “ The 
enemies”’ is more forcible. Christ’s enemies are the enemies 
of God. In conquering those who revolted from God’s first 
obedience, Christ acts as His father’s vicegerent. 

ὑπὸ τοὺς modas. Cf. Josh. x. 24; 1 Kings v. 3. The 
Apostle is citing Ps. cix. (cx.) 1, not accommodating the words 
to a purpose foreign to that of the Psalmist (Van Hengel), but 
resting his prediction of Christ’s victory on a prophecy con- 
cerning Messiah. Peter uses the same words as a Messianic 
prophecy (Acts ii. 35), and Christ Himself (Matt. xxii. 44), 
neither can the Pharisees gainsay Him. Cf. Heb. i. 13; x. 18. 

V. 26. ἔσχατος ἔχθρος, an explanatory predicate: ‘as the 
last enemy Death is destroyed.” Death has not, it appears 
from this, been destroyed at the second coming and at the 
resurrection of those that are Christ’s. The Apostle seems, it 

EE. 


418 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


must be acknowledged, to teach that there will be two resurrec- 
ticns, the former of believers only, the latter of all others, when 
at last ‘‘death itself will die.” The first resurrection is the 
redemption of the body for which believers groan (Rom. vii. 
23). Similarly the Apostle John says that the followers of 
Jesus (not the martyrs only ; for καὶ οἵτινες introduces others), 
will rise and reign with Christ a thousand years, and this is the 
first resurrection, but that the rest of the dead will not rise till 
the thousand years are ended (cf. Rev. xx. 4, 5). This is not 
inconsistent with the words of Christ in Matt. xxiv. 28-51, 
which have reference to the second coming and the resurrection 
of the elect. In Matt. xxiv. 31 a transition is unquestionably 
made from-the resurrection of saints, which takes place at the 
coming of Christ, to the general judgment, which takes place 
after that event (ὅταν ἔλθῃ, the aor. subj. being a futurum 
exactum). How long after we are not told. ‘he words in 
Barn., Ep. 15, ὅτων ἐλθὼν ὁ vids αὐτοῦ καταργήσει τὸν καιρὸν 
τοῦ ἀνόμου Kai κρινεῖ τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς, contain the doctrine of two 
resurrections. Cf. Thomasius, Dogmengesch. p.281. But St. 
Paul gives no encouragement to materialistic views of Christ’s 
reigu on earth, such as were advocated by Justin M. (Dial. 
ὁ. Lryph. 80), Ireneus (Adv. Her. V. 83-35) and Tertullian 
(Contra Mare. 111. 24), though they are. right in their doctrine 
of two resurrections.! 

No inference as to the final restoration of all (Origen, De 
Prine., I, vi.) can be fairly drawn from καταργεῖται, which 
may or may not imply a cessation of existence. It includes 
it in xiii. 10; it does not include it in reference to death it- 
self in 2 Tim. i. 11. 

V. 27. The proof that death, the last enemy, is destroyed 
iis that God has subjected all things under the feet of Christ. 
‘Only He who has subdued all things can destroy death. 

ὅταν δὲ εἴπῃ. Meyer, Osiander, Alford think these words 
vefer, not to a declaration in Scripture (De Wette), nor to 

‘1 I may add that my interpretation of the Apostle’s words is not the result of 
‘having adopted any theory on the general question. I know next to nothing 
‘of millenarian literature. But after reading Bp. Waldegrave’s New Testament 
Miliennarianism (2nd ed., 1866), and Dr. Brown’s Second Adveut (6th ed., 1867), 
Tam not convinced that the Apostle does not teach the doctrine of two resurrec- 


tions. Neither of these writers, so far as I have observed, touches upon the 
argument that death.is not.destroyed at the Advent. 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—xvVv. 26-28. 419 


God’s announcement at the creation of the world (Van Hen- 
gel), but to the Divine proclamation which will be made when 
all things have been subjected. Εὔπῃ will then be a futurum 
exactum. This view explains δῆλον. That God Himself is 
not subjected to Christ is manifest; for it is God that an- 
nounces, as ‘supreme ruler, the accomplishment of the sub- 
jection of all things to Christ. Notwithstanding this, the 
words “ He subjected all things under His feet” are a cita- 
tion from Ps. viii. 7, The Psalmist speaks of the subjection of 
all things to man. This subjection the Apostle finds realized 
in Christ, the man, the head of the race. We have a similar 
application of the words in Heb. ii. 6-9. Some editors (so 
margin of Rev. Vers.) enclose δῆλον. . . τὰ πᾶντα in 
parentheses, which makes the clause quite purposeless. It is 
true that ὅταν ὑποταγῇ (ver. 28) denotes the same act as ὅταν 
. . ὑποτέτακται. But the subjection of Christ to God is 
deonea by the fact that it is God who has subjected all things 
to Christ, God Himself being, therefore, excepted and alone 
excepted from subjection. 
» V. 28. Having declared what will occur before and up to the 
end, the Apostle repeats in another form that, when the end 
comes, Christ will deliver the mediatorial kingdom to God the 
Father. The subjection of Christ as God-Man to the Father is 
the final subjection and the ultimate reason of creation, redemp- 
tion and judgment. The mediatorial kingdom is delivered to 
the Father that God may be all in all. Hence the personality 
- of the God-Man will not be affected by this final act (against 
De Wette). The Sabellianism of Baur (Vorles. iiber Newtest. 
Theol. p. 206), who says that in the Apostle’s Christology 
Christ is Son of God in reference only to the work of redemp- 
tion, has no foundation in this verse, which, in fact, implies 
the opposite. The cessation of His human mode of existence 
or its absorption in Deity would not be called a subjection of 
Him to God. Christ will cease to be mediator in a redemptive 
scheme, but will for ever be the medium of communion, the 
Word of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. The subjection 
of Christ to God will be brought about, not merely because 
there will be no more need of atonement and intercession, 
but because it will constitute the final consummation of the 
Christian order of subordinations. Christ is king as vice- 


490 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


gerent of God. His kingship, therefore, involves that the 
kingdom will be delivered to the Father. But Christ is also 
Son, and sonship implies the possibility of subjection, even 
when it is necessarily accompanied by equality in nature. 
His kingship and his subjection rest on his sonship. For only 
the co-equal Son can be the fit vicegerent of God. Because 
He is Son, His highest reward and joy will consist in being 
subjected to the Father’s supremacy. The Arians appealed 
to this verse; and expositors have been apt to represent His 
subjection as in some way derogatory to Christ. Chrys., for 
instance (and he is followed by Gicum., Theophyl., Estius), 
asks what can be more absurd and unworthy of God than to 
inflict on His Son at some future time a subjection greater 
than that of taking the form of a servant: and he reduces 
the notion to a mere concord between the Father and the Son 
(ὅταν ὁμονοίῃ μετὰ πολλῆς THs ἀκριβείας). From a similar 
motive Augustine (De Trin. I. 16 and 20) explains it to mean 
that Christ will lead the saints to a contemplation of God 
the Father, and manifest God’s power to the unbelievers. So 
also Hilary, De Trin. XI. 21 sqq., who, however, explains the 
kingdom, not of any authority, but of the persons of the 
believers. Theod., Ambrose (De Fide, V. 14), Gicum., etc., 
think it means that Christ appropriates to Himself the sub- 
jection of the Church. But the Jewish belief connected to- 
gether the subjection and the glorification of Messiah; that 
is, that at the end of the world He would deliver His kingdom 
to God and for ever sit at God’s right hand. As the willing 
subjection of the Church to Christ will be its greatest glory, 
so also the subjection of the Son will be the Son’s highest 
honour. In Christ, in the Church, in every saint, God will 
fully and ever-increasingly reveal Himself. This is “the 
glory of God the Father,” which is the final purpose attained 
through the glory of the saints and the Church. 

Ta πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν cannot mean merely “that God may be 
everything in all men” (Bengel), as if the expression were: 
parallel with τὸ ὅλον αὐτοῖς ἣν καὶ τὸ πᾶν Ἀπελλῆς (Polyb. V. 
xxvi. 5). This does not account for the ἐν. Πᾶσιν must be 
neuter, as it means the πάντα subjected to Christ. Cf. Rom. 
xi. 36; Eph. i. 23. 

Vy. 29-84, The Apostle has now proved the resurrection 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE 'DEAD.—RxyvV. 28,29. 421 


of the dead from the fundamental conception of the relation 
between Christ and those who are Christ’s, on the one hand, 
of the relation between Christ and God, on the other. This, 
it appears to me, is the only direct proof offered by the 
Apostle of the doctrine of the resurrection. Then follows a 
series of questions having reference to the practical conse- 
quences of denying it. ‘These verses (29-384) bear the same 
relation to the foregoing proof of the resurrection which verses 
12-19 bear to the previous proof of the resurrection of Christ. 
They are intended to show that, if there is no resurrection 
of the dead, his preaching is vain, and their faith is vain; 
and that not only because it was the resurrection of Christ 
that made his preaching and their faith effectual (as in vv. 
12-19), but also because it is their own resurrection or change 
that will bring them into actual fruition of the glorious results 
of the ministry and of faith. 

V. 29. ἐπεί, that is, “if the dead do not rise.” It cor- 
responds to ver. 12 (cf. note on v.10). In Rom. iii. 6 ἐπεί 
stands without dpa, as here. So in the classics, e.g., Thue. 
II. 89. 

τί ποιήσουσιν, “what will they be doing?” “what will 
their act prove to be?” “what shall we say is the meaning 
and purpose of baptism for the dead, if used by men that deny 
the resurrection? ”” Cf. Mark xi. 5, τί ποιεῖτε λύοντες “ what 
do yon mean by loosing,” ete. Soin class. Greek, e.g., Auschyl., 
Suppl. 384, οὗτος τί ποιεῖς ; which is explained in the next 
words, ἐκ ποίου φρονήματος ; / The fut. tense expresses, not a 
future act, but men’s opinion of the character of a present act. 
Cf. Plato, Rep. IL. p. 376, ἰσχυρὸς ἡμῖν τὴν φύσιν ἔσται, “we 
shall infer that he is,” etc. Ἔσται is synon. with the previous 
τιθῶμεν. Winer (Gr. ὃ XL. 6) and Canon Evans render τί 
ποιήσουσιν, “what will they have recourse to?” But cf. 
note on νεκροί, ver. 15. It would seem that, when an opinion 
concerning a future act is expressed, the pres. is used; and 
when an opinion concerning a present act is expressed, the 
fut. is used. 

οἱ βαπτιζόμενοι, mid., “who get themselves baptized.” 
Cf. note on ἀδικεῖσθε, vi. 7. This also shows that τέ ποιή- 
σουσιν refers to the purpose of their baptism. 

ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν, “for the dead.” In interpreting this 


422. THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


famous crua much depends on every man’s opinion of what is 
natural. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that all 
those interpretations must be rejected which explain “ bap- 
tizing ” of anything else than the sacrament of baptism, or 
which take ὑπέρ in any other than a metaphorical meaning, 
or which explain “the dead”? to denote any other thing or 
person than men that have departed this life; and I have no 
other reason for rejecting these interpretations than that they 
appear to me forced and unnatural. I put on one side, there- 
fore, the following explanations: (1) Beza’s rendering, “ who 
wash the dead in order to burial;”’ (2) the rendering of 
Cocceius, Van Til, Ewald, etc., “ who wash themselves from 
ceremonial defilement contracted by touching a dead body;” 
(3) that of Bellarmine, Lightfoot (Hor. Heb.), etc., “who 
undergo the baptism of affliction and martyrdom;” (4) that 
of Aquinas, De Lyra, etc., “‘who are baptized for mortal 
sins ;” (5) that of Luther, Calovius, Piscator, Vossius, “ who 
are baptized over the tombs of the martyrs;” (6) that of 
Melanchthon, Bengel, etc., ““ who are baptized on the point of 
death ;”” not to mention a score of ingenious absurdities. Four 
interpretations are left us worthy of consideration. (1) Le 
Clerc, Hammond, Olshausen thus: “ who are baptized to fill 
the place of the dead.” Ὑπέρ can mean this. Cf. Dion. 
Hal. VIII. 87, ὑπὲρ (in locum) τῶν ἀποθανόντων ἐν τῷ πρὸς 
Avridtas πολέμῳ στρατιωτῶν ἠξίουν ἑτέρους καταγράφειν. 
But the notion of new converts coming in to fill the broken 
ranks or to make up the number of the elect is too foreign 
to the subject of the resurrection. (2) John Edwards of Cam- 
bridge (Enquiry into Four Remarkable Texts, 1692) proposed 
the rendering, “ who allow themselves to be baptized as 
converts to Christianity because they have observed the heroie 
behaviour of the Christian martyrs.” This view has been 
maintained by a few recent expositors. ‘St. Paul himself 
would be such a convert, and several other instances are 
mentioned in the early martyrologies. But this interpretation 
is open to the following objections. First, of βαπτιζόμενοι 
is not in the apostolic age the name for “ converts,” but of 
πιστεύοντες. Cf. Acts ii. 44. The reference must be, not to 
the faith signified, but to the symbolical act of baptism. 
Second, ὑπερ τῶν νεκρῶν is far from being a natural expression 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—XvV. 29. 423 


to denote the moral influence of martyrdom. How much more 
appropriate the expression in 1 Pet. ili. 1, διὰ τῆς τῶν γυναικῶν 
ἀναστροφῆς . . . κερδηθήσονται ϊ (3) Chrys., Theod., 
Theophy]., Bcum., and, in modern times, Erasmus, Hammond, 
Cor. a Lap., Estius, Wordsworth, etc., explain it to mean 
“baptism in hope of the resurrection of the dead.” Against 
this view it may be objected, first, that though baptism is a 
symbol of our spiritual burial with Christ and of our resur- 
rection into newness of life (Rom. vi. 4), the New Test. does 
not in any special way connect it with our belief in the re- 
surrection of the body; second, that, if this is the meaning, 
the Apostle’s question is by no means a formidable one; for 
the opponent can reply that, even if there be no resurrection 
of the dead, baptism is significant of present blessings ; third, 
that the ellipse in ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν for ἐπὶ προσδοκίᾳ ἀναστά- 
σεως τῶν νεκρῶν is awkward, especially if we read ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν 
after βαπτίζονται. (4) Tertullian in two places (De Reswrr. 
Carn. 48 ; Contra Mare. V. 10) says the Apostle refers to the 
custom of administering baptism vicariously, Epiphanius 
(Her. xxviii. 6) mentions a tradition that it was customary 
among the Cerinthians, when any of the catechumens died 
unbaptized, for some of their surviving friends to be baptized 
as their representatives, that the dead might not suffer the 
penalty of the unbaptized. He adds that tradition interpreted 
the Apostle’s words to be an allusion to this custom, though 
Epiphanius himself accepts the explanation that the dying are 
baptized in the hope of a resurrection. Chrysostom says the 
custom prevailed among the Marcionites, but will not admit 
any allusion to it in these words. Ambrosiaster agrees with 
Tertullian. But both are careful to add that the Apostle’s 
argument does not imply that he approved of the custom. It 
would have answered his purpose almost as well, says Ter- 
tullian, to argue from the heathen custom of praying for the 
dead on the Kalends of February. Hervzeus accepts the same 
explanation, giving it in Ambrosiaster’s words. After Scaliger 
and Grotius it is adopted in recent times by Riickert, De 
Wette, Meyer, Neander, Stanley, Alford, Heinrici, Renan (δέ. 
Paul, p. 241), Hausrath, ete. The objection that it is un- 
natural to suppose the Apostle would draw an argument from 
a superstitious custom or mention it without a word of dis- 


424 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


approval will affect different minds variously. It means that 
the Apostle ought not to use an argumentum ad homimem. 
But two things should be borne in mind. Jirst, he has 
already proved the doctrine of the resurrection. “The two 
questions of the present verses are each of them an appeal to 
a personal sense of consistency., In the latter of the two ques- 
tions he convicts himself, in the former he convicts others, of 
inconsistency, in acting as they do, if the dead rise not; and 
he is careful to separate the others from himself (“ what will 
they be doing?” not ‘‘ what shall we be doing ?”’) and καὶ 
ἡμεῖς is an emphatic antithesis to others. Second, the custom 
referred to was not a mere superstitious vestige of the heathen 
lupercalia (as Scaliger would explain it), but rested on a doc- 
trine, which, though erroneous and anti-Pauline, the Apostle 
may have tolerated in the Church—the doctrine afterwards 
known as that of the opus operatum. The living was baptized 
for the benefit of the dead because it was believed that the 
act of baptism without faith was efficacious to remove guilt. 
This is the logical consequence of the doctrine. If the virtue 
of a sacrament is in the act of due administration, not in the 
recipient’s faith, it may be efficacious when administered upon 
a duly appointed representative; and if so, it may (provided 
other considerations do not bar the way) benefit a person after 
death. From the same source arose the custom, prohibited by 
more than one Council, of administering the Eucharist to the 
dead. The only serious objection to this interpretation of the 
verse is the difficulty of supposing that the custom above 
mentioned had established itself so early in the Church. But 
every religion except Christianity rests on the supposed effi- 
cacy of external rites. It is only a man that has passed 
through a mighty revolution of his spiritual nature that will 
at once understand the Apostle’s great doctrine of faith. It 
is quite in keeping with St. Paul’s magnanimity and breadth 
to tolerate the doctrine of the opus operatwm and its cere- 
monial consequences, thongh in the same epistle he severely 
censures the unbrotherly, litigious spirit of the Corinthians. 
Mr. Beet suggests that in St. Paul’s day such a custom of 
vicarious baptism need not have meant that the dead man 
received any benefit from the rite. This relieves our interpre- 
tation of one difficulty, but involves us in another. For why 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—XvV. 29-31. 425 


should the survivors have received baptism instead of the 
dead if the rite had no signification? Even Socrates’ dying 
command to offer a cock to Aisculapius meant more than the 
performance of an omitted rite. And how is the Apostle’s 
argument any longer pertinent? 

εἰ ὅλως . . . ἐγείρονται. As ἐπεί contains the protasis 
to the first question, this conditional clause must be joined, 
as protasis, to the second question. 

ὅλως, “at all,” emphasizing the hypothesis and so forming 
a correlative to cai which emphasizes the consequent clause : 
“if there is no resurrection at all, why do ye go so far as even 
to baptize for the dead? If your disbelief in a resurrection is 
so complete, it would not be surprising that you should omit 
all care for the dead ; much more strange is it that you bestow 
upon them a Christian sacrament.” The Greeks believed that 
the souls of the dead were benefited by the funeral honours 
paid to the body. This wide-spread feeling would find its way 
into the Church and render the administration of a sacrament 
on behalf of the dead easy of introduction. 

For βαπτίζονται ὑπὲρ τῶν νεκρῶν we must read with δὲ A BD 
and Vale. βαπτίζονται ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν. 

Vv. 30-32. Τ|6 apostles too, if the dead rise not, have 
no incentive to encounter dangers for the sake of Christ. 

V. 30. τί; The asyndeton adds vividness to the question. 
The καί must be connected with ἡμεῖς, not with ti or κιν- 
δυνεύομεν. Not only those that get themselves baptized for 
the dead, but we also, who do not, are equally with them 
inconsistent, if there is no resurrection of the dead. 

V. 31. From the dangers he encountered in common with 
the other apostles, he passes to his own state of mind as 
preacher of the Gospel. He dies daily. This is more than 
an expression for bodily dangers (against Calvin, Meyer, De 
Wette); more than the ἕνεκά cov θανατούμεθα ὅλην τὴν ἡμέραν 
of Rom. viii. 86. It expresses the utter self-denial with which 
he devoted himself to the work of preaching Christ—an un- 
ceasing self-sacrifice of such a kind as could not fail of success 
in making converts. In proof of his declaration that his life 
was a constant dying unto himself and the world, he calls to 
witness the glorious results of his ministry at Corinth, self- 
sacrifice being a necessary condition and infallible guarantee of 


426 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ministerial power. While these results proved his self-denial, 
his self-denial proved his belief in the resurrection of the dead. 
Tt is true that men have denied themselves because they 
believed the soul to be immortal. The noblest sentiment of a 
heathen moralist is to be found in the words of Socrates, that 
philosophers above all men try in every sort of way to dissever 
the soul from the body. Cf. Plat., Phaedo, p. 64. “The 
philosopher,” he adds, ‘‘ dishonours the body ” and, in a sense 
approaching that in which the Apostle speaks of dying daily, 
‘practises death all his life long.” At first it would seem 
as if the Apostle took a lower position than that of Socrates. 
But, first, to the Apostle’s mind the conceptions of a future 
state and of a resurrection coalesce into one. The heathen 
philosopher had recognised the distinction between soul and 
body; but the theologian of Christianity proclaimed the higher 
truth that both constituted a personal unit. He does not speak 
of the immortality of the soul, but of the future life of the man. 
Second, in the Apostle’s account of human nature the conception 
of man’s personality again is included under a still higher 
conception, that of Christ’s relation to men as the head of 
restored humanity. But this involves, as we Have seen, the 
resurrection of Christ and of those that are Christ’s. To insist 
on the immortality of the soul merely would not cover the 
ground which Christianity has won for ethical speculation ; 
and to teach the native worth of virtue without reference to 
a future life, would be to lay aside the peculiarly Christian 
motive that springs from the death and resurrection of Christ. 

Expositors cite Cic., Tuse. I. 15. But his “ seeculorum 
quoddam augurium futurorum ”’ means the hope of posthumous 
fame, a very different thing from the Apostle’s notion. 

vy, the affirmative particle that introduces an oath. But, 
though Augustine (De Serm. in Monte, I. xvii.) argues from 
this verse that oaths are on occasions lawful, there is here 
properly speaking no oath, as the Apostle does not call God 
to witness. 

ὑμετέραν. So NBD Vulg. A has ἡμετέραν, which is 
defended by Griesbach and Riickert. But Lachm., ‘lisch., 
Treg., Westc. and Hort rightly adopt ὑμετέραν. It is equi- 
valent to an objective genit., “ my boast of you.” Cf. 2 Cor. 
ix. 8, τὸ καύχημα ἡμῶν τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. So in Thue. I. 33, 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—XvV. 31, 32. 427 


φόβῳ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ, “ from fear of us ;” 69, ai ὑμετέραι ἐλπίδες, 
‘the hopes reposed in you.” Cf. note on xi. 24. 

καύχησιν. He boasts of the Corinthians as his converts. 
Cf. 2 Cor. vii. 4. Now this his just boast proved that he 
possessed the true qualifications of a preacher of the Gospel, 
and one of them was that he should be ever dying to himself 
and living to God. 

ἀδελφοί is inserted by Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and 
Hort. from NAB Vulg. Though they are his “ children,” 
they are also his “ brethren.”’ 

ἣν . . . ἡμῶν. This clause not only explains the nature 
of his boast, that he rejoices in their conversion, but also adds 
a feature of his Christian boasting which <. implies the 
truth of the resurrection. For this boast 15 not atransitory 
feeling, but a possession (ἔχω) deposited with Jesus Christ, 
who is his guarantee for the future recompense of the reward. 

V. 32. κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, that is, “according to the senti- 
ments of the natural man,” not those implanted by the Spirit 
of God. Cf. note on ii. 3. In chap. ii. the Apostle means 
by the natural man the very highest type of character developed 
in those in whom there is no supernatural indwelling of the 
Holy Spirit. Here, however, he seems to refer to the sen- 
sualists of Corinth. He looks at pagan society as it is. We 
may suppose that he is not thinking of such men as Socrates 
was or as Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius will so soon prove 
to be. To aim at an ideal life, as Epictetus did, without 
reference to a future immortality is necessarily a rarer thing 
among Christians than among the heathen. Christians cannot 
in their inmost thought sever the virtue of being like Christ 
from the heaven of being with Him. For this reason, though 
there is probably as wide a difference between the highest and 
lowest types of moral character in the Church as there was in 
pagan Greece and Rome, the difference is not of the same kind. 
The most saintly and the most carnal of Christians are alike 
in their utter powerlessness to escape from the mighty shadows 
and fierce light of eternity. ‘The sound of glory was ringing 
in the ears” of saintly George Herbert. Yet the power to 
forget heaven and “eternal hopes and fears,” without losing 
his virtue, was the nearest approach that a pagan moralist 
made to Christian goodness. 


428 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ἐθηριομάχησα. That this is to be understood metaphorically 
is proved almost to a certainty by the fact that St. Paul was 
a Roman citizen and by absence of all reference in the Book 
of Acts and in 2 Cor. xi. to so miraculous a deliverance as 
exposure to the beasts of the amphitheatre would involve. 
Tertullian (De Resurr. Carn., 48), Cicum., Herveeus and, 
among recent writers, Pressensé and others maintain that it 
is an allusion to the tumult at Ephesus mentioned in Acts xix. 
We may admit sufficient time after the tumult had subsided 
for the Apostle to write the present chapter, as it is not said 
in Acts xx. 1 that he left immediately. But if that persecu- 
tion drove him from Ephesus, he could not have told the 
Corinthians (xvi. 9) that a great and mighty door was opened 
to him and that he intended remaining in Ephesus till Pente- 
cost. If he alludes to the tumult raised by Demetrius, he 
must have left Ephesus for other reasons unknown to us and 
to the last unexpected by him. Ignatius (Ad Rom. 5) bor- 
rows the metaphor and adds a pathetic force to it, being as he 
then was on his journey to Rome with the certainty of being 
thrown to the lions. Θηριομαχῶ was said, not only of armed 
gladiators, but also of unarmed prisoners (against Hstius and 
apparently Evans). Cf. Ignat., Ad Ephes. 1, et al. As the 
Apostle is writing at Ephesus, the aor. ἐθηριομάχησα must 
be translated by the perf., “have fought.” 

εἰ νεκροὶ οὐκ ἐγείρονται is better joined to what follows, 
as εἰ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον κ. τ. Δ. forms.the protasis toTi . . 
ὄφελος; 

φάγωμεν. . . ἀποθνήσκομεν. The words occur in LXX., 
Isa. xxii. 138. But words of similar import occur in Wisd. ii. 
6, ἀπολαύσωμεν τῶν ὄντων ἀγαθῶν. Cf. Herodot. 11. 78: 
“‘ Seeing this image of a corpse, drink and be merry, for such 
wilt thou also be.”?. They correctly describe the ethical position 
of the Cyrenaics. Cf. Zeller, Phil. der Griech. II. p. 256, who 
cites among other authorities Athenzeus XII. 544, [Ἀρίστιππος] 
ἀποδεξάμενος τὴν ἡδυπάθειαν ταύτην τέλος εἶναι, ἔφη Kal ἐν 
αὐτῇ τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν βεβλῆσθαι καὶ μονόχρονον αὐτὴν εἶναι, 
. + + ἑνὶ μόνῳ τὸ ἀγαθὸν κρίνων τῷ πάροντι. The Epicu- 
reans also, though they regarded repose of mind (ἀταραξία) as 
the highest kind of pleasure, sometimes said, with more con- 
sistent logic, περὶ γαστέρα τὸ ἀγαθόν. It is always the creed 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—XvV. 32-34 429 


of a few, but in times of terrible calamities it becomes the 
practice of the many. During the plague at Athens licentious- 
ness was the offspring of despair. Cf. Thuc. 11. 53. A simi- 
lar feeling of insecurity, though not so violent, was not less 
depressing in the ages which witnessed the civil wars in 
Rome, the Roman conquests in Greece and, after the reign of 
Augustus, the numerous changes under subsequent Czsars. 
The best known exponent of practical Hpicureanism is Horace, 
especially in the Odes (e.g. I. ii. 8; 11. x1. 18-17). Cf. Prof. 
Sellar, Virgil, p. 10. We cannot go far astray in recognising 
the operation of the same causes in the Apostle’s day. But 
it should be remembered that the Stoics drew an opposite 
inference from the same premises. Cf. M. Anton. 11. 2, ὡς 
ἤδη ἀποθνήσκων τῶν μὲν σαρκίων καταφρόνησον. 

V. 33. πλανᾶσθε. Cf. note on vi. 9. 

φθείρουσιν . . . κακαί. Jerome (Comm. in Gal. iv. 24) 
says the words are taken from a comedy of Menander. So- 
erates (Hist. Eccles. III. 16) infers from the words that St. 
Paul was acquainted with the dramas of Huripides. Lach- 
mann preserves the metre (a Senarius) by reading χρήσθ᾽ and 
so does Clem. Alex., Strom. I. p. 350 Potter, whose words 
(ἰαμβείῳ συγκέχρηταν τραγικῷ) confirms the assertion of 
Socrates. The Apostle summons a heathen poet to his aid 
against the vicious teaching of heathen moralists. A citation 
from Menander in this place would be specially apposite. For 
Menander seems to have been held in high repute by the 
Romans—such as the citizens of Corinth were at this time— 
and he was himself an Epicurean in his morals. 

ὁμιλίαι, “ company” (Rev. Ver.), not ‘communications ” 
(Auth. Ver.), nor “discussions” (Heinrici). It is the same 
advice we have in one of Menander’s Sentences (Diibner’s 
Menandri Fragmenta, pp. 21 and 90), ἀνδρὸς πονηροῦ φεῦγε 
συνοδίαν ἀεί. The doubts of some in the Corinthian Church 
concerning the resurrection of the dead was the consequence of 
their too intimate intercourse with their heathen neighbours. 

ἤθη occurs only here in the New Test. and that in a 
citation from a heathen poet. Christians instinctively avoided 
a word fixed to a heathen idea. 

V. 84. ἐκνήψατε, “wake out of your drunkenness.” Cf. 
Plut., Dem. 20, μεθύων ἔκνηψας. The Apostle describes their 


A30 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


sensual reasonings as a drunken fit. So Chrys., ws πρὸς 
μεθύοντας καὶ μαινομένους. The metaphor in Eph. v. 14 isa 
different one. 

δικαίως, not “ asis right you should do,” ut par est (Grimm, 
Lex. s.v.), but “in a righteous manner,” synon. with ἐν δικαιο- 
σύνῃ (Acts xvii. 31), and that, again, not to limit the meaning 
of the verb, as if there were an unrighteous awakening (Hein- 
rici), but ‘‘ awake in the way of righteousness,” “so as to be 
righteous,” what is expressed negatively in μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε. 
Thue. often uses adverbs proleptically, ἀπίστως for ὥστε εἶναι 
ἄπιστον, etc. ‘ Awake to righteousness”’ is a good rendering. 

μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε, “and do not go on sinning.” The awaking 
to righteousness must be followed up by a continuous effort to 
live a righteous life. Their life of sensuality was the conse- 
quence of their despair, and they could not believe in a future 
life because of their practical libertinism. 

ἀγνωσίαν, “ignorance,” synon. with ἄγνοιαν (Eph. iv. 18). 
But ἀγνωσίαν ἔχειν means more than ἀγνοεῖν. It regards the 
ignorance as a positive quality and makes it tantamount to 
unbelief. So Clement of Rome (Ad Cor. 59) makes it sy- 
nonymous with “the darkness of our pre-Christian state.” 
Their culpable ignorance of God is at the root of men’s dis- 
belief of the resurrection. The Apostle is referring not only to 
God’s power (cf. Matt. xxii. 29), but also to the relation in 
which God stands to man and the necessary subjection of all 
things, even the Son Himself, that God may be all inall. In 
Rom. i. 28 and 1 Thess. iv. 5 he characterizes the Gentiles as 
not having God in their knowledge. Some of the Christians 
in Corinth were no less estranged from God than the heathen. 
This allusion to the heathen lies in τινές. ‘ Some of you 
are cherishing that ignorance of God which belongs to the 
heathen ; and while it is natural in them, it is a shame to 
Christians.” For this reason he will not name them or he 
wishes to intimate that they are men whom he knows not and 
with whom he has had nothing to do. 

πρὸς ἐντροπὴν «.7.r, “I speak this to move you to 
shame” (Rev. Ver. excellently), ad pudorem ineutiendum 
(Grimm, Lex. 5. v.). Cf. note on vi. 5. He has identified the 
state of mind that admits doubt concerning the resurrection 
of the dead with heathen agnosticism. But to be an agnostic 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.-—xv. 34, 35. 431 


ought to be a Christian’s shame. The argument for the resur- 
rection of the dead from the subordination of all things to 
man, of man to Christ, of Christ to God, is a new revelation 
of God. To deny it is to acquiesce in agnosticism. 

λαλῶ is the reading of NBD, λέγω that of A. Aad re- 
minds them that they are listening to a prophet’s voice. 


D. The Proof confirmed by Analogies. 
(35-44..) 

The fact of the resurrection of the dead has been proved 
a priori, and the denial of it reduced to a pagan agnosticism 
of which Christians ought to be ashamed. But how is resur- 
rection possible? To understand the Apostle’s reply to the 
question we must lay firm hold of these two things: first, 
that he is speaking of the man, who is dead, not of the 
mass of matter undergoing dissolution in the earth; second, 
that his purpose is to point out analogies to the funda- 
mental conception on which his proof rests, viz., the con- 
ception of a progress that is not checked but realized 
through death. Now in the relation between the seed and the 
plant we recognise: (1) that death is, in some cases at least, 
necessary to the perpetuation of life; (2) that this perpetuation 
involves a development; (3) that this development is not auto- 
matic, but the consequence of a creative and beneficent act of 
God; (4) that in this creative act God appropriates indefinite 
material to produce the development of definite kinds. Again, 
the analogy of the various kinds of flesh teaches us (5) that 
this limiting of the limitless in the formation and development 
of kinds consists in differentiating their physical constitution, 
Finally, the analogy of the various kinds of glories in sun, 
moon and stars intimates (6) that such a differentiation of 
nature implies a difference also in sphere of action. ‘To apply 
all this to the subject in hand, it means (1) that the believer’s 
relation to Christ involves development ; (2) that this develop- 
ment implies death as one of its conditions; (8) that this 
development is brought about through God’s creative and 
beneficent act; (4) that it is a development within the limits 
of kind; (5) that it involves a change in mode of existence; 
(6) that it necessitates and secures transference of the entire 
man from this world into another sphere. 


432, THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


V. 35. Chrys., De Wette, etc., consider these two questions 
to be of different import. Meyer thinks the second is an 
explanation of the first. The δέ neither proves (Alford) nor 
disproves (Maier) the latter view. Cf. Hartung, Purtikell. I. 
Ρ. 169. In Hom., Jl. 1. 362, τί κλαίεις ; τί δέ σε φρένας ἵκετο 
πένθος ; the two questions mean the same thing: but in II. 
V. 704, τίνα πρῶτον ; τίνα δ᾽ ὕστατον ; the two questions have 
opposite meanings. Chrysostom’s view seems to me correct, 
because ver. 36 suggests the possibility and necessity of a 
resurrection, and consequently answers the first question, 
whereas ver. 37 is an answer to the second question respect- 
ing the nature of the future body. 

πῶς, not “in what manner?” but “how is it possible?” 
The δύναται is supplied in John vi. 52. Cf. note on ver. 12. 
Hence the pres. ἐγείρονται and ἔρχονται are not here used to 
transfer a future action into present time (Meyer, De Wette), 
but denote opinion respecting a future action: “ How are we 
to suppose the resurrection of the dead possible? And with 
what kind of body are we to suppose they will come?” Cf. 
note on ver. 15. 

ἔρχονται, not synon. with ἐκπορεύονται ἐκ τῶν μνημείων 
(John v. 29), as Rickert and Osiander explain it. The ques- 
tion of the objector implies that, in consequence of dissolution, 
no trace of the body remains. Neither is it a rhetorical ex- 
pression for “appear,” prodeunt in lucem (Meyer, De Wette, 
Van Hengel). Rhetoric is out of place here. Though the 
question is put in the mouth of a critic, the Apostle uses a 
word that contains a covert allusion to his own doctrine that 
God will bring with Christ those that have fallen asleep in 
Him. When Christ comes, the saints will come. ‘I'he Apostle 
is speaking of the man after death. ‘With what kind of body, 
then, since the body that was is dissolved, are we to suppose 
they will come? ” 

V. 36. ἄφρων, “dull,” “ senseless man,” the opposite of 
φρόνιμος. Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 19. The question was put by a 
clever, knowing critic. The Apostle charges him with stu- 
pidity and senselessness in not understanding that life springs 
out of death in the birth of every plant. Hence ov (which it 
is needless and awkward to connect with ἄφρων, as Meyer 
does) is emphatic. The man did not see what was taking 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—xv. 35-37. 438 


place at his feet in the grain which he himself had sown; 
and “ stupidity ”’ consists in not seeing what is close at hand. 

ἄφρων. The nom. must be accepted. SoNABD. Cf. 
Luke xii. 20; Heb. i. 8. In class. Greek also the nom. is 
sometimes used for the voc., but with οὗτος or the art. Cf. 
Bernhardy, W.S. p. 67. In omitting the art. the New Test. 
diction assimilates itself to the Homeric. Cf. Hom., Jl. I. 
231, δημοβόρος βασιλεύς. 

ζωοποιεῖται . . . ἀποθάνῃ. These words are used in 
preference to βχαστάνει and διαλύεται, as Chrys. remarks, to 
make the analogy between seeds sown and men dying the 
more evident. Cf. John xii. 24. This, then, is the Apostle’s 
answer to the first question. ‘The possibility, yea the neces- 
sity of a resurrection is illustrated by the sprouting ‘of seeds, 
which put forth, not though they die, but because they die. 
The analogy of seeds sown, breaking up into their elements, 
germinating in a new life, suggests that death may be neces- 
sary to the future life of men. The analogy is not between 
the dissolution of the seed and the dissolution of the dead 
body in the grave. For this would not apply*to the~body of 
Christ nor to the bodies of the believers that shall be alive 
at His coming. In fact, this would not be an analogy, but two 
instances of the same process, that of germination. The seed 
germinates. But a human body buried in earth doesnot 
germinate. It:does not require modern science to prove that 
there is no such thing as the germ of a new humanity in a 
dead body, and nowliere does the Apostle hint at such a thing. 
His words imply the reverse. For if he meant by the re- 
surrection of the dead the germination of the dead body, and 
nothing more, then the future body would be psychical, not 
spiritual, and the life to come would be only a repetition of 
the present earthly life. This was the theory of the Pharisees, 
but it is not St. Paul’s doctrine, and cannot be; for it really 
involves as its logical consequence that the inion life will 
in turn be followed by death and, therefore, that the endless 
existence of man will be an infinite succession of alternate 
periods of life and death. 

V. 387. The short answer to the first question leads to a 
longer discussion of the second. The analogy between the 
resurrection of the dead and the sprouting of seeds is ad- 

FF 


434 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


vanced a step further. The new life of the plant is a develop- 
ment. From a naked grain there is progress to the plant 
luxuriantly clad in leaves. 

ὃ σπείρεις. De Wette says ὅ is for εἴ τε. Certainly 6 stands 
for ὅτε in Hom., JJ.1.120. Others think it is accus. of nearer 
reference: ‘as to what thou sowest.” It is more natural to 
suppose a change of construction. He began apparently with 
the intention of making ὃ σπείρεις subject to ἐστέ. But, 
omitting ἐστι, he repeats σπείρεις as if he had not written 
ὃ σπείρεις. He does this to emphasize the notion of sowing; 
for sowing itself implies that the seed will undergo a change 
to become a plant : ἐξ οἵου οἷον. 

γυμνὸν κόκκον. Cited by Clem. Rom., Ad Cor. 24, ἅτινα 
πεσόντα εἰς τὴν γῆν ξηρὰ καὶ γυμνὰ διαλύεται. Cf. 2 Cor. 
y. 3. 

εἰ τύχοι. Cf. note on xiv. 10. 

V. 88, The emphatic words are “God gives.” (δίδωσιν 
precedes αὐτῷ in NAB). This emphasis is increased by 
καθὼς ἠθέλησε. In the life of nature there is an ultimate 
factor, which resists further analysis. It is the creative will 
of God (cf. ii. 6). The Divine will is also beneficent. The 
change is a gift. We need not suppose the Apostle personifies 
ithe seed as the recipient of a gift. Here, as before, he inserts 
a word which is more properly applicable to the resurrection 
of men. Believers receive this gift among all the blessings 
that flow from union with Christ. The aor. ἠθέλησε denotes 
the first act of God’s will determining the constitution of 
mature. The pres. δίδωσιν expresses the unceasing activity 
of God in the production of every single growth. The all- 
pervading activity of God acts uniformly. Nature is “ for ever 
‘shattered and the same for ever.” Origen supposes reason 
(Adyos) resides in the dead body. St. Paul says it resides in 
‘God. 

καί, “et quidem,” of more exact definition. Cf. note on 
111. 5. 

σπερμάτων. The plur. denotes the various kinds of seed. 

τό before ἔδιον is omitted in N ABD. So Lachm., Tisch., 
‘Treg., Westc. and Hort. The difference is the same as that 
between “its own body, not another body,’’ and “a distinct 
‘body of its own, not indefinite matter.” The latter is evi- 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—xv. 37-39. 435 


dently the Apostle’s meaning. He introduces here the con- 
ception of identity of kind. If the seed is rye, the plant is 
rye. However vast the changes through which the thing 
passes, they are all within the limits of the kind to which the 
thing belongs. Why it is that a seed always produces its own 
kind is a question which science has not yet answered. The 
Apostle ascribes it to the self-limiting creative will of God. 
The doctrine of the transmutation of species does, of course, 
weaken the analogy. It does not destroy it altogether, be- 
cause the transmutation, if it occurs at all, is brought about 
too slowly to be perceptible to the eye. We see only wheat 
springing from a grain of wheat; and this is enough for the 
Apostle’s purpose. The analogy is not the proof. 

V. 39. The asyndeton shows that the words are intended 
to be explanatory of the latter clause in ver. 36. If so, we 
cannot accept the view of Chrys., Theod., Gcum., Ambro- 
siaster, Estius, that the Apostle’s purpose is to show, by the 
analogy of material things, that one saint differs from another 
in the glory of heaven. So also Augustine, Hp. σον. 7. Nor 
can we accept the explanation of Calvin, Meyer, Kling, Van 
Hengel, etc.: ‘*.As one flesh differs from another, so also the 
future body differs from the body that dies”? This would 
involve a difference in kind, not a higher form of the same 
species. It is not a difference, but the identity of the man in 
all the changes through which he may pass, that connects the 
verse with what immediately precedes. The same flesh is not 
all flesh; that is, when any matter has been assimilated by 
any creature, it is no more indefinite matter, but is that specific 
creature or a part of it. Physical life is thus continued by 
constant limitation of unlimited matter. If we recognise the 
operation of this law in plants and animals, why may we not 
admit it also in the case of man, not only before death, but 
also after death, not only in repairing the present body, but in 
the formation of a new, spiritual and heavenly body? If this 
is the Apostle’s meaning, the doctrine taught in our passage 
is identical with what he tells us in 2 Cor. v. 1-4. On any 
other view the two passages seem to me to be irreconcilable. 
This interpretation is consistent also with Rom. vii. 11, where, 
we must bear in mind, the Apostle says θνητά, not νεκρά. 
Our present mortal bodies will be quickened into new life, not 


436 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


by the germination of flesh, but by the powerful energy of the 
supernatural element, the spirit, which dwells in the persons 
of the believers. The future body will be as truly the same 
body which we now have as the present body is identical with 
the body we had at our birth. The identity depends, not on 
numerical sameness of particles, but on relation to the man. 

The analogy of the various kinds of flesh points, not only 
to a limitation, but also, within the given limits, to a law of 
progress. The flesh of the lower creatures becomes the food of 
other and higher creatures; fishes, birds, cattle, food of men. 
But the flesh of men is of a higher kind, that is, it subserves 
more various and more perfect purposes, than the flesh of 
quadrupeds; quadrupeds are a higher kind than birds, birds 
than fishes. Thus the same indefinite matter by beimg re- 
peatedly limited, attains a more perfect form. 

πᾶσα σάρξ is predicate, ἡ αὐτὴ σάρξ is the subject. 

σάρξ is not synon. with σῶμω, but denotes the indefinite 
matter which becomes σῶμα when a specific form is impressed 
upon it. The use of the word σάρξ in this verse tells nothing 
in favour of the doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh, as 
Hstius argues. 

κτηνῶν, from κτάομαι, properly “ cattle,’ pecora (so Vulg. 
and Beza). Cf. Gen. i. 25; ii. 20, where κτῆνα are distin- 
guished from θηρία as graminivorous quadrupeds from beasts 
of prey. But the Apostle uses the word here symbolically for 
all quadrupeds. . 

πτηνῶν . . . ἰχθύων. This is the order of the words 
in NAB, and adopted by all critics. 

The Apostle’s classification is borrowed from Gen. i. 24-26 
and Ps. viii. 8. It resembles that of Pliny, who classifies ani- 
mals according as they dwell on the land, in the air, and in 
the sea. It was the obvious classification before Linnzeus and 
Cuvier classified animals according to structure and function. 

It may further be observed that the Apostle’s stringent 
separation of species from species is not irreconcilable with 
the theory of evolution, though its force as an analogy is 
weakened by that theory. But it is irreconcilable with auto- 
matic evolution, that is the denial of a Divine fiat separating 
the species and prohibiting retrogression. In fact the idea of 
development, which is distinct from the idea of evolution but 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—Xv. 39, 40. 437 


may be included in it, helps the Apostle’s analogy. For if life 
never generates itself and yet is in the truest sense generated 
and progresses from lower to higher forms, why may human 
development not advance from the present form of life through 
death into still higher stages ? 

V. 40. Not only is there difference of kind, but there is 
also difference of sphere. What does he mean by “bodies 
celestial ἢ Dismissing the allegorical interpretation of Ter- 
tullian, and the view of Chrys., Ambrosiaster, etc., that the 
Apostle is speaking of the difference between the condition of 
the good and the wicked in the other world, and the view of 
Augustine and others that he refers to the different degrees 
of glory in heaven, which things have no connection with the 
present argument, I am compelled to reject also the explana- 
tion mentioned, but not adopted, by Theophylact and recently 
advocated by Meyer, De Wette, Stanley, Alford, etc., that the 
Apostle means the bodies of the angels. Meyer refers to Phil. 
ii. 10, where, however, the words ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ 
κατωχθονίων are neuter, and express “a personification of 
universal nature”? (Bp. Lightfoot). In the present passage 
there is not even a personification. To speak of the angels in 
this connection would not, it is true, disturb the analogy. But 
the asyndeton in ver. 41 and the mention of sun, moon, and 
stars prove that these are meant by “ bodies celestial ; the 
οὐράνια στοιχεῖα of Justin M., Apol. 11. 5. We need not 
suppose that the Apostle ascribes life and sensation to them, 
after the manner of Philo. There is not a trace in the New 
Test. of the Greek notion that the stars are living creatures, 
as Hilgenfeld (Galaterbr. pp. 71, 75) and Grimm (Lew. s. v. 
ἐπουράνιος) allege. The word σώματα is used to express 
distinction of kind. The word denotes a totality, a distinct 
species, in accordance with its derivation from σῶς, integer.' 
Cf. Plat., Phileb. p. 29, ταῦτα . . . εἰς ὃν συγκείμενα 
ἐδόντες ἐπωνομάσαμεν σῶμα. The word is no argument in 
favour of the meaning assigned to “bodies celestial” by 
Canon Evans, “ bodies dwelling on the planets.” 

δόξα. From difference of physical constitution the Apostle 
has passed to difference in sphere of action. Some things 


1 The derivation is doubted by Curtius (Grundz. p. 382) because in Homer 
'σῶμα always signifies ‘‘a carcase.” 


438 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


attain their perfection on earth. Their glory is terrestrial. 
Other things demand a higher and larger sphere in which 
to shine. Their glory is celestial. The word δόξα means 
“ glorious appearance,” “beauty of form and colour,” a 
Hebraistic use of the word (Isa. xi. 3), as in Acts xxu. 11 
et al., unknown to classic writers. The notion of “lustrous 
appearance ” is introduced to suggest a new analogy. If sun, 
moon and stars are glorious in a sphere immeasurably larger 
than earth, may not man, who can investigate their laws and 
tell their nature and movements, require for his full develop- 
inent a sphere still nobler and higher ? 

V. 41. As in ver. 39, so eee the Apostle proceeds from 
the higher to the lower. ΤῸ unscientific observers the sun is 
more glorious than the moon, the moon than the stars (cf. 
Gen. i. 16), and one star than another. Cf. M. Anton. VI. 43, 
τί δὲ τῶν ἄστρων ἕκαστον ; οὐχὶ διάφορα ; 

V. 42. The resurrection of the dead exhibits the operation 
of the same principle which is the rule of God’s action in 
nature—development through death. 

σπείρεται. Wan Hengel, Winer (Gr. § LVIII. 9, ὃ. y) and 
Heinrici’s opinion that the passive is here used in an im- 
personal sense is refuted by ver. 44. It would mean that 
the act of sowing is in corruption. The subject is σῶμα. So 
Meyer, De Wette, etc. But Calvin, Neander, Van Hengel, 
Heinrici and in part Reuss rightly decline to restrict the 
reference to the burial of the dead body in the earth, which 
is the interpretation of Treneus (v. 7, 2), Tertullian (Contra 
Mare. V. 10), Origen (Contra Cels. V. 19), Chrys., Theophyl., 
Cicum., Grot., Bengel, Meyer, De Wette, etc. It is true that 
Van Hengel is no less mistaken in restricting it to the notion 
of procreation. The Apostle is contrasting the present state 
from birth to death with that which follows the resurrection. 
This is proved, I think, by the line e of argument, if we have 
traced it rightly; by the meanings x3 of “corruption,” “ dis- 
honour,” “ weakness;”? and by the evident reference.in the 
word ΉΜΝΕ to the living, not to the dead, body. (1) The 
argument is that the analogies of nature point to a develop- 
ment of man from the present mode of existence through 
death to a higher. The Apostle is speaking throughout of 
the man as to his body, not of the flesh in the grave. 1 it 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—xyv. 40-43. 439 


were otherwise, the analogy would require us to maintain that 
dissolution is necessary to the formation of the future body. 
(2) Expositors consider φθορά to mean dissolution, ἀτιμία to 
be an euphemism for foulness, and ἀσθένεια to denote the 
immobility of a dead body. If so, φθορά and ἀτιμία are 
really synonymous. Besides “weakness” is not the most 
natural expression for the stillness of death. But if “sowing” 
comprises the present condition of man, from first to last, 
φθορά will mean the decadence that can be arrested only by 
constant repair, ἀτιμία the animal side of generation, birth, 
life and death, ἀσθένεια the infirmities of infancy, sickness 
and old age. Asyndeton is frequent, when the objects enu- 
merated run, as here, in pairs. Cf. JelfpGr. § 792. 

ἐν φθορᾷ, “in a state of corruption.” Such is man as to 
his body from the first; he begins to die when he begins 
to live. The word ἐν expresses the closest possible relation 
between σπείρεται and φθορά, things that stand in the 
strongest possible contrast. Beza, Grotius, Flatt explain év 
φθορᾷ by φθαρτόν, “ corruptible,” which is as much too weak 
as ἐφθαρμένον is too strong. ‘The body is from its origin, not 
ouly liable to corruption, but in a state of corruption, which, 
however, is for a time held in check by the forces of life. 
Before man sinned the body was φθαρτόν, now it is ἐν φθορᾷ, - 
in the future life it is ἀφθαρτόν, not only alive, but also 
incapable of death. 

V. 48. ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ. “ Dishonour” surely does not mean τί 
εἰδεχθέστερον τοῦ νεκροῦ διαῤῥυέντος ; (Chrys.). The word 
expresses the estimation in which a thing is regarded ; and, if 
it refers to the body after death, it must mean indignities cast 
upon it by the living. Cf. Soph., Antig. 206, 210; where 
αἰκισθεντ᾽ ἰδεῖν is opposed to τιμήσεται. The Apostle would 
then be referring to the contempt that, in the estimation of 
the Stoics—of all, in fact, except the Christians—attaches to 
the body when the soul has departed. But if the reference is 
to the present state of existence, in which the body, though 
the temple of the Holy Ghost, is nevertheless ‘“ the body of 
our humiliation,’ the contrast between ‘‘dishonour ” and 
“glory ” is very effective (ef. Phil. iii. 21). “Glory will 
then mean, not merely brightness and beauty of appearance, 
the congruentia partium (Augustine, De Civ. XXII. 20) and 


440 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


dis cluritatis (Aquinas), but the glorified state in which the 
bodies of the redeemed will be fashioned anew and made 
conformable to the body of Christ in His exaltation. 

ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ, that is, in the helplessness of childhood, the 
infirmities of life, the utter prostration and collapse of the 
vital powers in death. Christ is said to have been erncified 
ἐξ ἀσθενείας (2 Cor. xiil. 4); for He had taken upon Him the 
sinless weakness of our nature, which is the consequence of sin. 
Other men have, in addition, sinful infirmities; some also diseases 
or deformities, which fall to the lot of individual men but are 
not the universal heritage of the race. These Christ had not. 

ἐν δυνάμει, that is, in perfect health, activity, fulness of 
development, and exemption from subjection to the present 
laws of matter. 

V.44. The words ψυχικόν and πνευματικόν are not an 
epitome of the qualities already mentioned (Meyer), which are, 
so to speak, external and accidental conditions of the body. 
The Apostle now proceeds to a difference arising from the 
relation in which the body stands, not to outward objects, but 
to the inner, governing principle. To mark this change in 
point of view, he adds σῶμα and repeats it. The body, 
though liable to decay, dishonour and infirmity, is adapted 
in its present condition to be the instrament of the soul; 
and the body in the future state will be a fit organ for 
the activities of the spirit. ‘ Soulish body ” and especially 
‘spiritual body”? are paradoxical expressions. It is evident 
from the following verses that “spiritual”? is synonymous 
with “heavenly,” aud “soulish” with “earthly;” that to have 
a spiritual body is to bear the image of the heavenly; and 
that this is brought to pass by the power of Christ. The 
distinction, therefore, between “ soulish”’ and “ spiritual” is 
not based on a psychological difference, but, in perfect ac- 
cordance with the use of the words in other passages, Ψυχή 
denotes the natural life and faculties of man and includes the 
νοῦς, which in St. Paul’s writings is distinguished, not from 
ψυχή, but from σάρξ, whereas πνεῦμα denotes the super-— 
natural life and heaven-bestowed energies of the regenerate. 
‘The body is soulish in so far as it is fitted to be the organ of 
the natural; spiritual, in so far as it will be fitted to be the 
organ of the supernatural powers, which are the result of the 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD—XvV. 43,44. 441 


indwelling of the Spirit of God. Cf. Theophyl., τὸ τὴν τοῦ 
ἁγίου πνεύματος καταπλουτοῦν ἐνέργειαν. If, with Reuss and 
others, we consider the ψυχή to be only the principle of the 
physical life, on which the vital functious depend, the instincts 
and appetites, the πνεῦμα will denote the higher faculties of 
ratiocination and will. But these no less than the sensual 
powers require a bodily organism in the present state of exis- 
tence ; and Reuss, somewhat inconsistently, explains πνεῦμα 
of the vital principle communicated to the regenerate. Hven 
now the πνεῦμα, the Divine nature, dwells in the believer and 
changes him from a Ψψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος into a πνευματικὸς 
ἄνθρωπος, but his bodily organism is at present adapted only 
to be the instrument of his natural powers. Ψυχικός im- 
plies an adaptation of the lower product, the body, for the 
service of a product of higher order, the soul. In the future 
state the body will have been adapted for the service of the 
still loftier powers of spirit. Moreover, its adaptation for the 
present service of the soul is the sowing of it, that is, the 
initial step in its adaptation for the future purposes of the 
spirit. An organism fitted to be the seat of mind, to express 
emotion, to carry out the behests of will is already in process 
of being adapted for a still nobler_ministry. But the ulterior 
stages in this Divine adaptation of the body for its final re- 
demption are hidden from our eyes behind the veil of death. 
We only know, first, that the Apostle does not teach the 
doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh; and, second, on the 
other hand, that he does not teach that the future body is a 
new creation independent of the present organism. The exact 
relation of the future body to the present body we do not know. 

εἰ ἔστιν σῶμα ψυχικόν, ἔστιν καὶ πνευματικόν is the reading 
of NABCD, Vulg. So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and 
Hort. But Reiche, Osiand., Van Heng., Hofm. omit εἰ. The 
meaning is not very different. But. the insertion of εἰ makes 
the existence of the psychical body more or less a proof of 
the existence-of a spiritual body. The latter is the perfect 
development of the former; and the existence of the former, 
with its marvellous capabilities, suggests and, to a mind that 
believes in the living and good God, demonstrates the future 
existence of the latter. The resurrection of the dead is an 
iustance of the universal law of progress. 


442, THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


E. The Proof confirmed by Scripture. 
(45-49). 


Analogy has pointed to a law of progress that operates in 
reference to men through death. The Apostle now rises 
clear above analogies and discovers in Scripture also the con- 
ception which constituted his proof of the resurrection and to 
which his analogies have led up. 

V. 45. He is, no doubt, citing Gen. ii. 7, καὶ ἐγένετο 6 
ἄνθρωπος eis ψυχὴν ζῶσαν. But he interweaves with the 
words of Scripture, which refer to man at his creation, his own 
inference. He adds πρῶτος and Addu, as Bengel remarks, 
“ex naturd oppositorum.” To give his readers to understand 
he is not citing word for word, he says οὕτως. Cf. Thuc. I. 22, 
ἐχομένῳ ὡς ἐγγύτατα τῆς ξυμπάσης γνώμης τῶν ἀληθῶς 
λεχθέντων, οὕτως εἴρηται. The inference the Apostle draws 
is one of the central doctrines of his anthropology. Scripture 
says that man became a living soul. But, though it may be 
true that the human soul has peculiar powers or that the 
powers it has in common with the animals have a wider com- 
pass, to be a living soul is not the end and perfection of man, 
who was made in the image of God. His inalienable possession 
of the Divine image both marks the homogeneity of the race 
and proves that man is destined to attain a height of glory 
greater than that of his creation. ΤῸ explain in what this 
glory consists the Apostle again introduces his doctrine of the 
two heads of the race, Adam and Christ. In virtue of His 
relation to Adam, man is what he became at his creation. But 
Christ is the source of the glory that surpasses the glory of 
nature, the honour for which man is ultimately designed. The 
argument is similar to that of Heb. ii. 8,9; and this resem- 
blance renders it probable that the Epistle to the Hebrews was 
written by a disciple of St. Paul. The scriptural statement, 
** Man became a living soul,” is expanded into “ The first man 
Adam became a living soul;” and the opposite truth, which 
this statement involves, is expressly added, ‘‘ The last Adam 
became a quickening spirit.” 

eis. Cf. note on vi. 16. The ordinary construction also 
occurs. Cf. i. 30. 





THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—xvV. 45. 443 


ψυχήν. If the above interpretation be the true one, we 
must beware, first, of limiting the meaning of ψυχή to the 
lower, sensational powers of the soul (so Estius, Osiauder, etc.), 
and, second, of saying that man became ψυχικός by reason of 
the fall (Hervzeus, Olshausen, etc.). Jewish interpreters assign 
a peculiar force to the word “ became,” as if the languig2 of 
Moses implied that God had made man spiritual, but that he 
“became,” through his disobedience, psychical. 

ὁ ἔσχατος. The second man (ver. 47) is the last. But the 
Apostle avoids the expression ‘the last man” and says “ last 
Adam,” because these two, Adam and Christ, stand in a pe- . 
culiar relation to the race. Adam was τύπος τοῦ μέλλοντος 
(Rom. v. 14). The antithesis occurs in the later rabbinical 
writings: Adam is the first, Messiah is the last. Perhaps 
Hofmann’s suggestion is not too fanciful, that the Apostle 
intended the paradox, “The last First One,” that is, the last 
Head of the race. 

πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν, “ quickening,” ‘life-giving spirit; ” 
that is, Christ is become the source of all supernatural gifts. 
“Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” The soul can 
only be the subject of life; the spirit is a source of life (ef. 
John vi. 09). Those who receive the spirit from Christ have, 
therefore, in themselves a life-giving power (cf. John vii. 38, 
39). It was in virtue of the life-giving spirit within Him that 
Christ had power, not only to lay down His life, but also to 
take it again (cf.,John x. 18). This spirit, says St. Paul here, 
produces the future body of the redeemed (cf. Rom. viii. 11). 
The expression “living soul” occurs frequently, never “living 
spirit.” 

Other explanations are the following :— 

(1) That the bestowal of the Holy Spirit on Christ is meant. 
So Severian (Cat.), Theophyl., Gicum., who cites Methodius to 
the same effect. The designation of the Holy Spirit, inserted 
in the enlarged form of the Nicene Creed adopted at Chalce- 
don (a.D. 451), τὸ ζωοποιόν, was undoubtedly taken from this 
verse. Of. Athanasius, Def. Nic. Symb., ad fin. 


1 The Revisers have here excluded the expressive word “" quicken,” probably | 
because it is ambiguous. But they admit it in Eph. ii. 5; 1 Pet. iii. 18. 
“Quick” is etymologically connected with vivo and Bios, as “ cow” is with 
Bods. 


414 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


(2) That the Apostle refers to the assumption of a human 
spirit or soul by Christ. So Cor. a Lap. and others. But the 
Apostle’s evident intention to distinguish between ψυχή and 
πνεῦμα sufficiently refutes this interpretation. 

(3) That the Apostle means that Christ became a quickening 
spirit at His resurrection. So Ambrosiaster, Grotius, Estius, 
Kling, Meyer, Heinrici, R. Schmidt (Paulin. Christol. p. 108), 
Pileiderer (Paulin. p. 132), Sabatier (L’?Apétre Paul, deuxiéme 
ed., p. 292). It is to my mind a much more natural inter- 
pretation of the passage, that He became a quickening spirit 
when He became the second Adam at His incarnation. As 
Adam was created a living soul, so Christ’s person was essen- 
tially the source of all supernatural grace. His incarnation was 
the intrusion of a Divine force into humanity. So Theophyl. 
rightly : οὐσιωδῶς. This does not necessitate our thinking 
that Christ’s body was naturally immortal. That He should 
die was not a miracle; the incarnation was. Meyer’s objection 
that Christ’s body was Wuycxor till His resurrection has very 
little force or rather tells somewhat on the other side. His 
body equally with the bodies of the redeemed was a body of 
humiliation, though He was Himself at the same time a life- 
giving spirit; and it was through the power of that spirit 
that His body became a spiritual body at his resurrection. 
Cf. note on vi. 14. We must not limit the reference of “ life- 
giving ” to the life of the risen body (Meyer). ‘The state- 
ment is general. : 

V. 46. Van Hengel, anticipated in this by @cum., thinks 
the meaning is that the appearance of the spiritual in the 
world in the person of Jesus Christ is subsequent to the 
appearance of the natural in the firsts Adam. But the only 
connection between this and the doctrine of the résurrection 
would be an analogy; and if the historical Christ were meant, 
the expression would have been ὁ πνευματικός, not τὸ πνευ- 
patixov. Chrys., Theophyl., Estius, Riickert, Meyer, De 
Wette, Alford, Robertson, Kling, Cox, etc., consider it to be 
a general statement to the effect that the less perfect precedes 
the more perfect in all the works of God; as if the Apostle 
were replying to a querulous objection, ‘Why did not the 
highest form of perfection appear at the dawn of human 
history?” If this were the meaning, the words would be 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—xv. 45-47. 445 


explanatory of ver. 45 and would not, therefore, begin with 
ἀλλά. Moreover, τὸ πνευματικὸν does not mean perfection in 
general, but one kind only of perfection, that which has been 
revealed in Christ as the second Head of humanity. The 
following verses also show that τὸ ψυχικόν denotes the first 
Adam and the natural body, τὸ πνευματικόν the second Adam 
and the spiritual body. It may be readily admitted that the 
Apostle had the universal law of progress in the background 
of his thoughts. Still this is not what he actually says. The 
history of man is a progress from Adam to Christ, from soul- 
ish to spiritual, from the present life to the future. 

V. 47. Recognising a law of progress, not of retrogres- 
sion, in the relation of the psychical and the spiritual to one 
another, the Apostle connects it with the subject of the 
resurrection by identifying the psychical with the earthy, 
the spiritual with the heavenly. The first man is not only 
psychical, but also of the earth earthy; the second man is not 
only spiritual, but also from heaven. ‘This is said to show that 
the development which attains perfection in a higher sphere 
than the present demands for its realization the introduction 
into humanity of a supernatural element. Progress is not 
mere evolution. | 

ἐκ γῆς and ἐξ οὐρανοῦ denote origin. Wan Hengel argues 
from Luke xi. 13; xx. 4; 2 Cor. v. 2; Gal.i. 8 that ἐκ some- 
times expresses quality, dignity. But these passages do not 
bear him out; and this would make ἐκ γῆς synon. with χοϊκός. 

χοϊκός, properly “clayey,” πήλινος, γήϊνος (Hesych.), but 
here used vividly to express man’s terrestrial nature. Because 
he is of the earth in his origin, that is, as to his body, there i: 
a terrestrial side to his nature and sphere of action. The de- 
rivation from yém must not be applied here, though it was in 
Philo’s mind: ὁ δὲ γήϊνος ἐκ σποράδος ὕλης ἣν χοῦν κέκληκεν 
ἐπάγη. Calvin’s explanation ‘‘terram sapiens” is correct, 
but too narrow. From χοῖκός we may infer, as corollaries’: 

(1) That man in his sinless state had a body capable of 
dying. If he had continued sinless, his body would have been 
rendered immortal by a Divine act, and we gather from Gen. 
11. 22 that eating of the tree of life was the appointed sacra- 
ment of immortality. This is consistent with Rom. v. 12. 
In the case of man sin brought death, not mortality, into the 


446 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


world. Philo (De Mund. Op., p. 32, Vol. I. Mang.), like St. 
Paul, describes the earthy man as naturally mortal as to his 
body. This is the view of Augustine (De Gen. ad. Litt. VI. 24, 
et al.), Ambrosiaster, Estius, Grotius (De Satisf. Christi, ¢. 1.), 
Bp. Bull (State of Man before the Fall, p. 123, Oxf. Ed.), and 
Meyer. Its correctness is confirmed by the side-light it throws 
on another subject, the voluntariness of Christ’s death. As 
Christ was sinless death was not a necessity to Him, though 
He had a mortal body; and as He was Divine as well as sin- 
less, death was impossible to Him without a voluntary act of 
“laying down”’ His life. 

(2) We infer also that the Divine image in Adam consisted, 
negatively, in sinlessness and, positively, in a potential and 
rudimentary goodness; by no means in the full perfection of 
human nature. Christ does intinitely more than restore our 
original state. Cf. Wisd. viii. 1, γηγενὴς πρωτόπλαστος. 

ὁ Κύριος appears after δεύτερος ἄνθρωπος in A, Tertullian, 
etc. ; and Bengel, Olshausen, Wordsworth retain it. But as it 
is wanting in NBCD, Lachm., Tisch., Reiche, Tree., Weste. 
and Hort are justified in omitting it. Neander, Van Hengel 
and others have said that Tertullian (Contra Mure. V. 10) ac- 
cuses Marcion of having fabricated the reading Κύριος and 
substituted it for ἄνθρωπος, to avoid the inference that Christ’s 
body was born of woman. ‘Tertullian only says that Marcion 
omitted ἄνθρωπος. The reading ἄνθρωπος ὁ Κύριος is in- 
dependent of Marcion. The insertion of ὁ Κύριος may have 
arisen from the notion that the Apostle i is referring to Christ’s 
second coming. So Theod. and many others. But the Apostle 
is speaking of Christ here as the spiritual Head of humanity. 
He introduces His heavenly origin in order to show the super- 
nitural and Divine character of the renewed humanity that 
begins in Christ. The reference is, therefore, to His incarna- 
tion. So Athanasius, Orat. 1. Contra Arian. 44; Bp. Ball, 
Judic. Leel. Cath. V. 5. We cannot, however, admit that the 
Apostle intended to say that Christ’s body came down from 
heaven. This would be fatal to the cogency of the argument, 
which depends on Christ’s being Head of the race. It is 
necessary to St. Paul’s Christology that Christ should be 
“ made of woman” (Gal. iv. 4). Cf. Rom. i. 4. While this 
early Marcionite and Apollinarian error is refuted by the 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—xXvV. 47,48. 447 


evident purpose of the passage, the view of Baur, Pfleiderer, 
Beyschlag, ete., that the Apostle represents Christ as being 
already man in His pre-existent state, is disproved by ver. 45. 
If the spiritual and human existed in Christ before He created 
the world, the psychical is not first and the spiritual is not last. 

It is not at all improbable that the Apostle had Philo’s words 
in his mind. For Philo (Leg. Alleg., passim ; De Mund. Op., ut 
sup.) distinguishes between the οὐράνιος ἄνθρωπος and the 
ynivos ἄνθρωπος. But according to him the heavenly man is 
first, the earthy second. The reason of the difference is that 
he considered the heavenly man to be an idea in the mind 
of God, whereas St. Paul represents the man from heaven as 
a person, who has entered into the historic development of the 
human race and forms its crown of perfection. Cf. Babing- 
ton, Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, I. p.47. The 
argumentative form of ver. 46 (“not . . . but”) makes 
the controversial allusion to Philo extremely probable. 

After οὐρανοῦ Origen reads οὐράνιος. But Adam was ter- 
restrial because he had been created out of the dust of the 
earth, Christ was not heavenly because He had come down 
from heaven. In relation to Adam é« denotes origin of ex- 
istence, in reference to Christ it means origin of assumed 
condition. To add οὐράνιος would be inconsistent with the 
Apostle’s doctrine of Christ’s pre-existence. 

V. 48. Another step in the argument and an approach to 
the conclusion. The headship of Adam involves identity of 
nature and of character with those who are his; the headship 
of Christ involves identity of nature and character with those 
who are in union with Him. Because Adam was ψυχικός and 
xoixos, all men in their natural state are terrestrial; because 
Christ is ἐπουράνιος and πνευματικός, all believers are in their 
supernatural state spiritual and heavenly. The indefinite word 
τοιοῦτοι is purposely chosen. The Apostle has not in this 
discussion mentioned the sin of Adam and the consequent sin 
of his race, nor the obedience of Christ and the consequent 
righteousness of believers. Now, however, at the close of his 
great argument, he uses a word that suggests an allusion to 
this moral resemblance in so far as it bears upon the ques- 
tion, on the one hand, of the mortality, and, on the other 
hand, of the immortality, of men. Hence, though it would be 


448 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


incorrect, I think, to restrict the reference to mortality and 
immortality, as Augustine does (Hp. σον. Consentio), Gicum. 
and Theophyl. unduly press to the front the reference to sin 
and holiness, which is not directly brought forward before 
ver. 56, 

V. 49. B has φορέσομεν, and Theod. speaks deeidedly in 
its favour. But NACD read φορέσωμεν. So Chrys. says, 
συμβουλευτικῶς. Tert. (Contra. Mare. V. 10): ‘ preeceptive, 
non promissive.” Vulg., portemus. So Cyprian (Adv. Jud. 10 
et al.), Ambrosiaster, etc. The weight of evidence is not quite 
so strong in favour of the subjunctive here as in Rom. v. 1. 
Yet it cannot be put aside, unless we suppose it is an instance 
of itacism. Internal probability on the one side or the other 
there is none. On the whole, though φορέσομεν is a safe 
reading, because it is only less comprehensive, we are justified 
in reading φορέσωμεν, with Lachm., Tisch (8th ed.), Treg., 
Westc. and Hort. Canon Evans, reading φορέσωμεν, renders 
it by “we are to bear,” adding that the sense is much the 
same as ‘‘we shall bear.”? But is this subjunctive in inde- 
pendent sentences usual in prose? ‘The covert allusion to 
moral character in ver. 48 makes it natural to understand 
φορέσωμεν as an exhortation. In Phil. ii. 21 the Apostle says 
that Christ will transform the body of our humiliation and 
conform it to the body of His glory. But in ver. 11 of the 
same chap. he represents this change, which takes place at 
the resurrection, as the consummation of his hopes, the prac- 
tical result of faith and effort. ‘This may, therefore, be justly 
included in the exhortation of our passage, especially as the 
aor. is the tense. If he had meant only a holy life, probably 
the present would have been used. But he regards the resur- 
rection state as a garment to be put on once for all. Φορέω 
is properly the frequentative form of φέρω, and is often 
used of those things which we always have about us, clothes 
for instance, of which φέρω is seldom used. Cf. Lobeck, 
Phiryn. pp. 585, 6; Grimm, Lex. So in Matt. xi. 8; James 
ii. 8. The allusion to wearing a garment is not lost in the 
metaphorical use of the word. Ct. Soph., Autig. 705, μὴ ἕν 
ἦθος pope. ‘The Apostle means the same thing in this ver, 
and in Col. iii. 10, “ having put on the new man.” Believers 
are already such (τοιοῦτοι) as the Heavenly One is, But the 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—xv. 48-50. 449 


resemblance is ideal, not yet fully realized. Cf. note on v. 7. 
The word εἰκών also requires that we should understand more 
by the words than mere change of the body from psychical 
to spiritual. In 2 Cor. iii. 18 the words τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα 
μεταμορφούμεθα signify the growing likeness of the believer 
to Christ in holiness; and in Rom viii. 29 the context demands 
a much wider meaning for εἰκών than resemblance to Christ 
in body. At the resurrection the saint will be the image of 
the God-Man, even as the God-Man is of His Father, or, as 
Gregory of Nyssa says, καθάπερ εἰκὼν εἰκόνος. 

ἐφορέσαμεν . . . hopéowpev, The forms in -ec- are 
late, in LXX., etc. The class. forms are ἐφόρησα, φορήσω. 
Cf. Veitch, Greek Verbs, s.v. 


F. The change from Psychical to Spiritual necessary and 
universal, 
(50-54). 

V. 50. τοῦτο δέ φημι, “but this I affirm,” that is, what 
follows I wish to impress upon you. If he had said λέγω, 
he might have intended the words to be explanatory of what 
precedes (so Reuss, Heinrici, etc.). But φημί expresses the 
notion of affirming in order to correct a misapprehension. The 
Apostle wishes to sever himself from the Jewish theory of a 
resurrection of the flesh. Billroth, Olshausen and Krauss un- 
derstand the words to be a concession to the upholders of the 
doctrine of a merely moral resurrection. But in that case he 
would have used ὁμολογῷ, as in Acts xxiv. 14, or a word of 
similar import, not φημί. Hence ὅτε means “ that,” not “ be- 
cause” (Beza), as if τοῦτο referred to what precedes. 

σὰρξ καὶ αἷμα, that is, haman nature in its present material, 
mortal, corruptible state. The phrase is synon. with one mean- 
ing of ψυχικός, but conveys the notion of frail in addition 
to that of natural. Cf. Polyzenus, Strateg. III. xi. 1, where 
ἀνθρώποις αἷμα καὶ σάρκα ἔχουσιν is explained by τῆς αὐτῆς. 
φυσεως ἡμῖν κεκοινωνηκόσι. The Apostle marks the contrast 
between the glory and power of God’s kingdom and the weak- 
ness of mortal, human nature. Man, as now constituted, is too: 
feeble to wield the sceptre over the vast and mighty forces of 
the other world, which are to be subjected to him. So Theod.. 

σα 


450 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


(τὴν θνητὴν φύσιν), Severian, and virtually to the same effect 
Calvin, De Wette, Meyer, etc. The ethical meaning (Irenzeus, 
V. ix., Methodius, Chrys., tas πονηρὰς πράξεις, Ambrosiaster, 
Photius, and many modern expositors) brings the verse into 
excellent connection with φορέσωμεν. But, first, it would re- 
quire τοῦτο γάρ φημι, and, second, though σάρξ has often an 
ethical signification, σὰρξ καὶ aiwa has not. Cf. LXX., Sir. 
xiv. 18, γενεὰ σαρκὸς καὶ αἵματος, and Eph. vi. 12, where see 
Harless’ note (p. 535), and Heb. 1. 14. 

βασιλείαν. Of. Phil. iii. 20, ἡμῶν yap τὸ πολίτευμα ἐν οὐρα- 
wots, 2 Tim. iv. 18, τὴν ἐπουράνιον, Heb. xi. 16, ἐπουρανίου. 
‘Cf. note on iv. 20. 

κληρονομεῖ. Lachm. reads κληρονόμησει after CD. But 
ΝΑ B have the pres., which expresses with οὐ an impos- 
sibility arising from the nature of the thing. The abstract 
nouns “ corruption” and ‘‘ incorruption ” are used to express 
‘the mutually exclusive and antagonistic nature of the two con- 
ditions of being “corrupt” and of being “incorrupt.” Death 
cannot live. Hence also the force of the word ‘ inherit,” in 
allusion to God’s covenant with Abraham. It is introduced 
pertinently into an argument directed against the men that 
prided themselves on being the heirs of the covenant and 
looked forward, as Abraham himself did not (cf. Heb. xi. 16), 
‘to an inheritance suitable only for flesh and blood. But the 
‘antagonist cannot be the heir ; corruption, which is the enemy, 
-eannot have the right, even if it had the fitness, to inherit 
the kingdom of God. The ethical signification of “cor- 
ruption” is here, but in the background. It is not the 
‘prominent notion. The early expositors were led to an ex- 
-clusively ethical sense by their materialistic conception of 
ithe resurrection. For instance, Ireneus (V. xii. 3) and Ter- 
'tullian (De Reswrr. Carn. 35) held that the risen body would 
‘be of flesh and blood, materially identical with the present 
‘body. This doctrine appears in the earliest Creed of the 
Roman Church, was maintained by all the sub-apostolic writers, 
-and defended by Methodius, Epiphanius, Jerome, and others. 
The expression “ resurrection of the flesh ” was finally adopted 
to confront the Origenistic doctrine that the body would be 
raised a spiritual or at least ethereal one. But it is in direct 
contradiction to the Apostle’s language. Indeed the author 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—XvV. 50-51. 451 


of the Fragment “On the Resurrection,” ascribed to Justin 
Martyr, has expressed his materialistic notion of the resur- 
rection in words the very reverse of what the Apostle says: 
τὸν θεὸν ὑπισχνεῖσθαι τὴν φθορὰν ἀφθαρσίαν ποιεῖν. 

V. 51. Three remarkable differences of reading occur in 
this verse (1) πάντες [μὲν] od κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ 
ἀλλαγησόμεθα. (2) πάντες [μὲν] κοιμηθησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες 
δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα. (8) πάντες ἀναστησόμεθα, οὐ πάντες δὲ 
ἀλλαγησόμεθα. The third of these readings is found in D, 
Vulg. (resurgemus), Tert.t (De Resurr. Carn. 42), and is men- 
tioned by Augustine (Zp. cciv., et al.) and Jerome (Ep. ecxix. 
et al.) as being the reading of Latin, but not of Greek MSS. 
The meaning will be that the wicked will rise no less than the 
just, but that the just only will be changed. So Ambrosiaster 
andin more recent times Dean Colet. But the Greek evidence 
in favour of the reading is weak; and the entire discussion 
has reference to believers. The second reading appears in δα 
C, and is accepted by Augustine (ut swp.). Lachm. adopts it. 
The first reading is that of A (ἢ B. Reiche shows that the 
evidence for it is decisive. So Tisch. (8th Hd.), Treg., Weste. 
and Hort, Meyer, Heinrici, etc. It is the only reading con- 
sistent with 1 Thess. iv. 15-17, where the Apostle undoubtedly 
declares that some will live till the coming of Christ and not 
die. Moreover, a negative clause (‘ we shall not be changed”’) 
cannot be joined with the words that immediately follow, “in 
a moment,” etc. 

πάντες οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα. Does this mean “none of us 
shall sleep,” or “all of us shall not, but some of us shall, 
sleep?”? Meyer, Winer (Gr. ὃ LXI. 5 f.), Ewald, Kling argue 
that the negative particle must belong to the verb, and that 
the trajection of od (that is, πάντες od for οὐ πάντες) is in- 
admissible. According to this view the meaning is that the 
Apostle himself and all other Christians that will not have died 
before the coming of Christ will not die, but will be changed. 
The objections to this interpretation are the following: First, 
the limitation of the meaning of “all” to “all that shall not 


1 Sabatier’s opinion that the context of the passage in Tert. requires the first 
of these readings, though now generally accepted, is, I venture to think, 
erroneous. ‘Tert. infers that only the living shall be changed from the 
Apostle’s supposed statement, ‘‘ we shall not all be changed.” 


452 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS, 


have died before the coming of Christ,” is arbitrary and, when 
we cousider that the word “all”? is emphatic in the verse, 
unnatural. Second, the Apostle’s object is to show that, 
though flesh and blood cannot, yet all believers will, in a 
higher condition, inherit the kingdom of God. The appre- 
hension supposed in the passage to be felt by some believers 
is the opposite of that which the Apostle allays in 1 Thess. iv. 
13-17. The Thessalonians feared that their brethren, who had 
fallen asleep, would not share in the glory of Christ’s second 
coming, and the Apostle assures them that the dead in Christ 
will arise and even anticipate the entrance of the living into 
the heavenly kingdom. Here, on the other hand, the difficulty 
is to understand how the living at the coming of Christ can 
inherit the kingdom, inasmuch as flesh and blood cannot. 
The Apostle replies that, though all will not fall asleep, yet all 
will be changed. Christians in Corinth expected, or had 
expected, to live till the day of the Lord should be revealed 
(cf. i. 8). In the early part of his stay among them the 
Apostle wrote his First Epistle to the Thessalonians, in which 
he makes known “ the word of the Lord,” that the dead would 
rise and the living be caught up to meet the Lord in the air. 
It is difficult to believe that he withheld this truth at the time 
from the Corinthian believers. We may surely infer that 
their expectation of the Lord’s second coming was the direct 
result of St. Paul’s oral teaching. They needed not, there- 
fore, to be now told that all who survived till Christ came 
would escape death and be caught up to meet him. The 
mystery that still remained to be revealed was that the living 
would be caught up not in their present, terrestrial condition, 
but after a change brought about by the power of God. 

The question, however, is whether πάντες οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα 
will grammatically admit of being rendered, “Some of us 
shall not sleep.” Of the instances cited by expositors some 
are certainly not to the point; e.g., in Rom. xii. 4 the ov be- 
longs to τὴν αὐτήν, not to the verb, and some such expression 
as “but different offices” must be mentally supplied. Again, 
in Josh. xi. 18 πάσας τὰς πόλεις οὐκ ἐνέπρησεν means that 
Israel did not burn any of the cities, not that they did not 
burn all; and in Sir. xvii. 30 οὐ δύναται πάντα εἶναι means 
“it is impossible.” Meyer says that Num, xxiii. 18, πάντας 


TU# RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—xXvV. 51, 52. 453 


δὲ οὐ μὴ ἴδης, is not relevant, because ov μὴ has a tendency, 
which ov has not, to attach itself to the verb, and Van 
Hengel admits the force of the argument. But the real ques- 
tion is, not whether πώντες οὐ can stand for οὐ πώντες, but 
whether πάντες can be used in a negative sentence (the nega- 
tion belonging to the verb), be the negative particle what it 
may, to express the same notion as tevés. This question must 
be answered in the affirmative trom Num. xxii. 13. If the 
Apostle had said οὐ πάντες κοιμηθησόμεθα, the words might! 
* have implied that, though all will not sleep, some will. But 
the uncertainty as to the time when Christ would appear 
rendered it necessary to avoid asserting, even by implication, 
that some would not remain till the second coming. 

From what has been said it is evident that the word 
“mystery” does not mean here ta ἀπόῤῥητα (Origen, Contra 
Oels. V. 19), but has its usual meaning of “a truth made 
known by revelation.” It may be compared with ἐν λόγῳ 
Κυρίου of 1 Thess. iv. 15. But to the Thessalonians the 
Apostle communicated only a portion of the word of the Lord, 
that is, only what was calculated to allay their fears. Now he 
makes known another portion apparently of the same reve- 
lation, that believers left till the coming of Christ shall be 
changed. But here also a part only of this secret counsel of 
God is divulged. The nature of the change is not revealed. 
We know from ver. 44 that it is a change from a psychical to 
a spiritual body. In Phil. ili. 21 it is called a μετασχηματί- 
few, and the result is said to be that the body of the believer 
is conformed to the body of Christ’s glory. It stands in con- 
trast to the change into decay and death, which will come 
over all created things else. Cf. Heb. i. 12. 

V. 52. ἐν ἀτόμῳ and ἐν ῥιπῇ ὀφθαλμοῦ mean the same 
thing and are to be connected with ἀλλαγησόμεθα. Cf. Soph., 
El. 106, ῥιπὴ ἄστρων. The change will be instantaneous and 
complete. This he says to show them that the dead will have 
no advantage ‘over the living. To be steadfast, unmoveable, 
abounding in the work of the Lord amidst the trials of life on 
earth will not fail of a reward in a glorious transformation 
equal to the glory of the holy dead, who are now with the Lord 
and whom God will bring with Him at His coming. 


1 Might ; for ob πᾶς might, on the contrary, be a Hebraism for “no one.” 


454 TUE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ἐν τῇ ἐσχάτῃ σάλπιγγι, “ab the last trump.” We may 
gather from 1 Thess. iv. 16 that these words are intended to 
account for the wondrous change wrought on the living and 
the dead at the coming of Christ. Nothing less brings it to 
pass than the immediate operation of God’s power. The meta- 
phor of a trumpet is borrowed from the history of solemn 
manifestations of God under the Old Testament. Cf. Exod. 
xix. 16, φωνὴ τῆς σάλπιγγος ἤχει, Which sound of trumpet, as 
we learn from Heb. xii., was the signal to the people of the 
descent of the Lord upon the mountain and was the imme-- 
diate cause of their terror. So in Zech. ix. 14, Κύριος παντο- 
κράτωρ ἐν σάλπιγγι σαλπιεῖ. When Jesus raised Lazarus, 
He cried with a loud voice (cf. John v. 28). This explanation 
of the metaphor is better than that of Ambrosiaster, that by 
the trumpet is to be understood the signal to battle. The 
Apostle calls it the last trump, not in allusion to the rabbinical 
notion of seven stages in the process of the resurrection—a 
notion that rests on the anti-Pauline materialistic doctrine that 
flesh and blood will be raised—nor merely as denoting the 
trumpet of the last day or the trumpet that sounds at the end 
of the world (Estius, Meyer, Alford), but to signify that this 
will be the last manifestation of God to men in this their 
earthly condition. ‘The trumpet that sounded on Sinai when 
the law was given will again sound to announce the coming 
of the Lord. This explanation includes that of Theod. Mops., 
Severian (Cat.) and Jerome, that the Apostle is expressing the 
same notion as St. John in Rev. xi. 15, without, of course, sup- 
posing that either alludes to the other. 

σαλπίσει . . . ἀλλαγησόμεθα. The Apostle adds these 
words, not to assure his readers that what he has mentioned 
will infallibly take place, but to give the order in which the 
three great acts of the last day will follow one another. The 
first will be the sudden signal of God’s presence. Then the 
dead in Christ will rise. Last of all, the living will be changed. 
This is the order also in 1 Thess. iv. 14-17. The ‘‘ Didache ” 
(c. 16) reverses the order. The Apostle seems to attach some 
importance to the fact that the dead will rise before the living 
are changed. He declares it to be part of a revelation from 
the Lord (1 Thess. iv. 15). But why this order and why does 
he here state it? This at least may be said: the living will 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—XvV. 52,53. 455 


witness the resurrection of the dead, and those that are raised 
will witness the change of the living. Both will, thereupon, 
be caught up together to meet the Lord. 

σαλπίσει, late fut. The Attic fut., which, judging from the 
analogy of other verbs denoting sound, would be σαλπίξομαι, 
does not occur. In LXX. σαλπιῶ occurs. Σαλπίσει is here 
impers. (cf. ἐπειδὰν δὲ σημήνῃ, Xen., Anab. II. ii. 4). In 
1 Thess. iv. 16 the σαλπιγκτής is said to be an Archangel; 
and this again intimates that the trumpet proclaims the 
presence of God. 

ἐγερθήσονται. SoN®BC. AD read ἀναστήσονται. 

καί, “and then,” with a slightly inferential force. It is 
the καί consecutivum. Cf. Matt. viii. 8; James iv. 7. 

V.53. In the previous verses the Apostle has declared the 
change of the living as a revelation. He proves now that it 
must be. Because flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom 
of God, the mortal must pass though a change from psychical 
to spiritual, before it can enter into the life to come. 

τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο. ‘Tertullian (De Resurr. Carn. 51) argues 
that the verse implies a resurrection of the flesh, “cutem 
ipsam tenus;”’ and Chrys., Theod., Theophyl., Hervzeus, and 
some modern expositors think the Apostle’s object is to state 
the identity of the dying body with the body that will be 
raised. But a comparison of the verse with 2 Cor. v. 2-4 
shows that ἐνδύσασθαι refers, not to the dead, but to the living. 
In that passage the Apostle speaks of the living, clothed with 
the present body as with a garment, and earnestly desiring, 
not to lay the garment aside by dying, but to put on the 
spiritual body as an upper garment is put on over a lower one, 
that mortality may be swallowed up of life. Cf. 2 Pet. i. 14, 
where dying is described as “ a putting off of the tabernacle.” 
The emphatic τοῦτο contains a personal application of the 
doctrine concerning the future change to the Apostle himself. 
He points, to borrow Theodoret’s words, as it were with his 
finger to “this my body.” It is this personal exultation at 
the prospect of living to the day of Christ that the Apostle 
corrects in the pathetic language of his Second Epistle, when 
he sees the outer man perishing and intimates the probability 
of the earthly house being dissolved. Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 16-v. 10. 

Expositors try to discover a difference between “ this cor- 


456 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ruptible ”? and “this mortal.” Hervzeus, for instance, thinks 


incorruption is an attribute of all that will be raised, immor- 
tality an attribute of the just only. Bengel says ‘ corrup- 
tible” refers to the dead, “immortal” to the living, which 
would imply that φθαρτός means ‘‘corrupted.”” But repetition 
of the same thought and even the same words is in harmony 
with the slow and solemn march of the whole of this triumphant 
pean. The stately step of the passage is in striking contrast 
to the rapid movement of the more argumentative portions of 
the chapter. 

V. 54. The words τὸ φθαρτὸν τοῦτο ἐνδύσηται ἀφθαρσίαν 
καί are omitted in NC and Vulg. So Lachm. In A the two 
clauses are transposed. But B D and Peshitta have the above 
words first. So Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. 

vicos, later form of νίκη. But BD have νεῖκος, and Tert. 
(ut sup.), Cyprian (Test. iii. 58), etc., read “in contentionem.” 
There are other instances of confusion between vixos and 
νεῖκος. 

γενήσεται ὁ λόγος. Hofm. renders: “ then will the word be 
spoken,” and cites John x. 35, which is not a parallel passage ; 
for ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐγένετο means, not only that the word 
of Gud was spoken, but that it was spoken as a message. For 
λόγος in the sense of a Divine declaration cf. 1 Thess. iv. 15; 
John xv. 25. For γίγνεσθαι in the sense of “ to be fulfilled ” 
οἵ, Matt. vi. 10; Mark xi. 23. Chrys. rightly: τότε ἡ γραφὴ 
πληροῦται. The Apostle is citing Isa. xxv. 8. But LXX. 
reverses the meaning of the Hebrew by rendering it κατέπιεν 
ὁ θάνατος ἰσχύσας. Aquila has καταπόντισει τὸν θάνατον 
εἰς νῖκος. Theodotion, apparently borrowing the Apostle’s 
rendering, has κατεπόθη ὁ θάνατος eis νῖκος. Symmachus: 
καταποθῆναι ποιήσει τὸν θάνατον eis τέλος. That St. Paul 
had the rendering of LXX. in his mind is almost certainly 
proved by his using the word καταπίνω. But he intentionally 
corrected it. He put the verb, however, in the passive. 

The reference in this verse also is to the change of the 
living, In 2 Cor. v. 4 dying is expressiy excluded from the 
meaning of the word καταπίνεσθαι. Deathless change is 
called a swallowing up, an absorption, of the mortal by the 
principle of life in Christ. Indeed the words of the prophet 
himself may be understood of an escape from death rather than 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—XV. 58-55. 457 


of a resurrection of the dead. Cf. Cheyne’s Isaiah Chrono- 
logically Arranged, p. 125. But even if Isaiah speaks of the 
time when death itself must die, which seems to be the use 
made of his words in Rey. xxi. 4, his prophecy is also fulfilled, 
though not finally, in the absorption of mortality by life. 
This view accounts for the retention by the Apostle of the 
word καταπίνειν from LXX., even when he corrects the trans- 
lation. 


G. Refrain of Triumph and Concluding Exhortation. 
(55-58). 
V. 55. The order of the clauses in NBC, Vulg. is ποῦ 


~ +» . viKos; mod . . . Kéevtpov; So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., 
Westc. and Hort. The clause ποῦ. . . vixos; is omitted 
in A. For ἅδη, which is an early reading, δὲ BCD Vulg. 
repeat Oavate. So Lachm., Tisch., Treg., Westc. and Hort. 
Van Heng. and Wordsworth wronely retain &5n. The Apostle 
is borrowing the words of Hosea xiii. 14 and _ evidently 
has the rendering of LXX. in his mind, ποῦ ἡ δίκη σου, 
θάνατε; ποῦ τὸ κέντρον σου, ἅδη; But he has altered two 
words. (1) For δίκη, “judgment,’’ “arraignment,” he has 
written νῖκος, “victory,” not because he quotes from memory 
(Reuss), but to continne the notion already expressed in eis 
νῖκος. The Heb. OMIT aay be the plur. of WT, “ word,” or. 
of 137, “destruction.” C£ Gesenius, Lex. s.v. LXX. appears 
to have adopted the former rendering, in the forensic sense of 
*Jaw-suit.” So Aquila, ποῦ εἰσὲν of λόγοι cov; The Apostle 
prefers the latter meaning. So also Symmachus, who has 
πληγή, and the Vulg., which has mors. It is the more prob- 
able rendering. (2) For the ἅδη of LXX., the Sheol of the 
Hebrews, the Apostle writes θάνατε. It is remarkable that 
the word Hades does not occur in St. Paul’s Epistles ; and 
when we find him using ἄβυσσος instead in Rom. x. 7 and 
actually substituting θάνατος for it in this passage, it is 
difficult to suppose its absence is accidental. In writing to 
Greeks he may have shunned the ill-omened name, which, we 
are told by Plato (Urat. p. 403), the common people dreaded to 
utter. But, in addition to this, the Apostle’s own conception 


458 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


of death and of the future state is so far removed from the 
Greek myth of Hades, 


” \ 
ἔνθα τε νεκροὶ 
ἀφραδέες ναίουσι, βροτῶν εἴδωλα καμόντων, 


(Hom., Od. xi. 475, 6), 


that he strikes out, as Socrates also begged the poets’ pardon 
for doing (Plat., Rep, p. 387, διαγράφωμεν), the very name 
that brought in its train ‘‘ the sapless shades, the shrilling 
cries, of flitting ghosts passing like smoke beneath the earth.” 
A similar antipathy to the Greek conception meets us in Philo 
(De Cong. Quer. Erudit. Grat., p. 527, Vol. I. Mang.), who 
bids us distinguish between the mythical and the true Hades, 
the former a place only, the latter a moral condition, the life 
of a wicked man. Chrys. (De Cem. et Cruce, p. 398) says that 
before Christ came death was called death and Hades, but 
since He died for the life of the world, it is a sleep. The 
Apostle states his conception of Death in the words imme- 
diately following: The sting of death is, not Hades, but sin. 

τὸ νῖκος, “ thy victory.” Death has conquered us; Christ 
has conquered the conqueror. Herveus excellently: “ Ubi est 
victoria tua qua omnes sic viceras ut etiam Dei filius tecum 
confligerat teque non vitando sed suscipiendo superaret ? ” 

κέντρον, “sting,” death being represented as a venomous 
serpent ; not “ goad,” as if death were only “driving” men to 
destruction (Flatt, Billroth, Heinrici). The word must signify, 
not merely what imparts to death its bitterness, but what gives 
death its power of wounding mortally. The Heb. word ren- 
dered κέντρον properly means “a cut,” then the instrument 
that cuts. 

V. 56. The two questions in ver. 55 give the Apostle an 
opportunity to introduce the only element that seems wanting 
hitherto to the completeness of his doctrine of the resurrection, 
the characteristic Pauline notion of the moral relation in 
which believers stand to Christ and, through Christ, to all 
Christ’s enemies. The sting with which death, the last enemy, 
kills is sin. This is precisely what the Apostle teaches in 
Rom. v.12. That he reiterates the doctrine in the present 
passage proves that he himself at least saw no irreconcilable 
contradiction between his treatment of the doctrine of sin in 


THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.—xXvV. 55-58. 459 


the Epistles to the Romans and to the Corinthians. In both 
places he declares that death comes through sin. But to say 
that the sting of death is sin involves that the strength of sin 
is the law. Death follows sin, not simply as a physical, but 
essentially as a moral consequence (cf. Rom. v. 16; vi. 23). 
The inference is that victory over sin is possible only through 
the propitiation, which is Jesus Christ (cf. Rom. iii. 25), The 
headship of the second Man has no real existence apart from 
His atonement. Christ acts as a quickening spirit through 
redemption. In this way the Apostle connects the resurrec- 
tion of believers with the death of Christ as well as with the 
power of His heavenly life. Thus to make the judicial intent 
of Christ’s death the key-stone of the discussion is an unmis- 
takable sign of Pauline thought. For this reason we must 
reject the view of Chrys., Severian, (Cat.), Augustine (De Perf. 
Instit. 6, et al.) and several modern expositors, that law is 
here said to be the strength of sin because it quickens and 
invigorates the habit of sin. 

V. 57. διδόντι, pres., not (as Meyer, Alford, etc.) to denote 
the certainty of the future resurrection, but to express that 
even now we have forgiveness of sins. If the sting of death 
is sin, victory over death must be forgiveness of the sin. 

τὸ νῖκος, “that victory’ which death has gained and 
Christ turns into a defeat through His atoning death. The 
New ‘est. represents the resurrection, not as a mere event, 
but as man’s final conquest over every form of evil. The 
question is transferred from the material into the moral 
sphere; another proof that the subject of the chapter is not 
the general resurrection, but the resurrection of believers. 
The Apostle’s purpose is to encourage timid Christians in the 
conflict against sin with the certain hope of victory at last. 

V. 58. The concluding exhortation, based on the whole 
discussion, and connecting it with the instructions that 
immediately follow respecting the collection for the poor 
saints in Jernsalem. Hofmann and others begin the next 
chap. with this verse, but not so happily; because the words 
“steadfast, unmoveable”’ are not to be connected with “in 
the work of the Lord.” 

ὥστε, “therefore.” Cf. note on iii. 21. 

ἀγαπητοί, “beloved ones.” Under the influence of the 
hopes and triumphs now recounted, the Apostle’s soul melts 


460 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


into tenderness. A still greater change of tone from excited 
indignation to sympathetic gentleness occurs in 2 Cor. vii. 1. 
There it is produced by an enumeration of God’s promises. 

ἑδραῖοι. Cf. note in vil. 37. 

ἀμετακίνητοι. The generic term is ἑδραῖοι, “ steadfast.” 
The word “unmoved” denotes resistance to the special at- 
tempt to overthrow their faith in the doctrine of the resur- 
rection. It is implied that an attempt of the kind has been 
intentionally made in the Corinthian Church. Cf. vv. 32-34. 

περισσεύοντες. Faith ina resurrection produces a conscious- 
ness of boundless and endless power for work. In the case of 
a believer, youth’s large dreams never contract into commons 
place achievement. The thought of finality in life and work 
gives place to the hope of an eternal enlargement of sphere, 
ever-increasing powers, ever more effective service. Περισσεύω 
has always a comparative meaning. Here it expresses the 
thought of infinity of aim. We have had several intimations 
in the course of the Epistle that the Apostle considered the 
root of the evils that were sapping the Christianity of the 
Corinthians to be spiritual lethargy. From this sprang their 
pride, their factions, their tolerance of immoral lives, their 
intolerance of honest errors of judgment, their unspiritual 
conception of truth, and their impatient scorn of doctrines not 
materialistic. 

ἐν τῷ ἔργῳ τοῦ Κυρίου, that is, in doing the work which 
the Lord Jesus Christ entrusts to them, and which, therefore, 
is rendered to Him. They must give an account of their 
stewardship. Resurrection involves judgment. 

εἰδότες, “inasmuch as ye know.” They knew by this time, 
from the Apostle’s argument, that quick and dead will appear 
before Christ. Faithfulness will be rewarded with partici- 
pation in Christ’s glory; for the fire will test every man’s 
work (cf. iii. 13; iv. 5). The Apostle began the discussion 
by declaring that, if there is no resurrection of the dead, his 
preaching and their faith are equally vain. He closes his 
argument with an appeal to their Christian conscience and 
their conviction that, because there will be a resurrection, 
their humble toil (κόπος, cf. note on ui. 8) from day to day 
in the work of the Lord will be no more in vain than their 
faith in Christ, no more in vain than the ministry of apostles, 
no more in vain than Christ’s death and atonement. 


EIGHTH DIVISION. 


SUNDRY PERSONAL AND INCIDENTAL MATTERS. 
(xvi. 1-24). 


A. Of the Oollection for the Church in Jerusalem. 
(1-4). 


Ir was customary among the Jews of the Dispersion to send 
contributions to their poorer brethren in Palestine. Of. 
Ewald, Geschichte ete. VI. 438. The Apostle has himself 
been already, with Barnabas, the bearer of alms from the 
Gentile Churches to the Church in Jerusalem (cf. Acts xi. 
30). One purpose of the free associations (ἔρανον) in the 
Gentile world was to help the poor, not only members of the 
same association, but members of other associations belonging 
to the same guild; and it is in allusion to these benefit clubs 
that Tertullian speaks of “areca” and “ stips”’ in connection 
with the Church’s provision for the poor. Afterwards also 
the Apostle laid the injunction on the Churches of Galatia to 
give alms to their brethren inJudza. Bp. Lightfoot supposes, 
not without reason, that they did not respond heartily to the 
appeal. No allusion is made to the alms of the Galatian 
Churches, except in this place. The Apostle was more suc- 
cessful in inducing the Churches of Macedonia and especially 
Achaia to make the contribution. He was himself the bearer 
of their alms (cf. Rom. xv. 26; 2 Cor. ix. 1-5; Acts xxiv. 
17). Nothing is known of the causes of the poverty of the 
Jewish Christians. It is clear that the community of property, 
if indeed the theory was sanctioned and the practice was es- 
tablished at the first (Acts ii. 44), had failed and been aban- 
doned. Augustine surmises that the poverty of the Church 
461 


462 TIIE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


in Jerusalem was the direct consequence of the attempt to 
introduce such community of goods. From the expression 
τοὺς πτωχοὺς τῶν ἁγίων (Rom. xv. 26) we may infer that all 
the members of the Church were not poor. It is not, there- 
fore, true to say that the Jewish Christians were at this time 
Ebionites. ‘'o say the least, only some of them were bound 
by a vow of poverty ; and it is not likely the Gentile Churches 
would give alms to maintain the practice of religious poverty. 
We may, perhaps, suppose that the effect of the famine in 
the time of Claudius (Acts xi. 28) had not yet entirely dis- 
appeared. In addition to this we know from 1 Thess. ii. 14 
that the Christian Jews had recently suffered persecution at 
the hands of their countrymen. Riickert thinks the Apostle 
interested himself on their behalf in order to reconcile the 
Judaists among the Christians. This conjecture—for it is 
nothing more—is inconsistent with the stipulation made by 
James, Cephas and John, that Paul and Barnabas should 
continue to remember the poor Christians of Judea, before 
they would consent to their going to the Gentiles. 

V.1. περί, not to be connected with ὥσπερ διέταξα, but 
introducing a new subject (cf. viii. 1; xii. 1). The Corinthian 
Church had already promised to make the collection (cf. 2 Cor. 
viii. 10). I infer that it was mentioned in the letter sent by 
the Corinthians to the Apostle. They may have asked for 
instructions as to the most effective method of carrying out 
their intention. 

λογίας. The word now occurs for the first time. Elsewhere 
the Apostle uses χάρις (ver. 3), κοινωνία (Rom. xv. 26), 
εὐλογία (2 Cor. ix. 5), λειτουργία (2 Cor. ix. 12), ἐλεημοσύναι 
and προσφοραί (Acts xxiv. 17). In the form συλλογή (sc. 
χρημάτων) the word passed into the language of the Church. 
Chrys. adds épavos in his paraphrase, the nearest approach in 
heathen Greece to the Christian “ collection.” But the word 
was avoided by the Apostle because he was not now asking 
the Corinthians to contribute to a common purse, but to 
make a special gift of money to strangers. The notion of 
charity to the poor as such is not a heathen idea. The word 
ἐλεημοσύναι would have Jewish associations in its meaning. 
The Apostle prefers coining a word to using épavos or 
ἐλεημοσύναι. 


PERSONAL AND INCIDENTAL MATTERS.—KXVI. l. 463 


διέταξα. The aor. refers to one occasion, probably when 
he visited Galatia on his second missionary journey, three 
years before. ‘The collection of the Galatian Churches, if it 
was made at all, must have been already transmitted to Jeru- 
salem. 

Γαλατίας. Bengel’s note has been often cited, but some- 
thing similar appears in Chrysostom. ‘He sets before the 
Corinthians the example of the Galatians, before the Mace- 
donians the example of the Corinthians, before the Romans 
the example of the Corinthians and Macedonians.” 

οὕτω, “ thus,” as he directs in ver. 2. 

V. 2. κατὰ μίαν σαββάτου, “ every first day of the week.” 
For κατά cf. note on xvi. 31. Els is used for πρῶτος by a 
Hebraism. Cf. Joseph., Ant. I. 1, αὕτη μὲν εἴη πρώτη ἡμέρα: 
Μωσῆς δὲ αὐτὴν μίαν εἶπεν. Philo allegorizes on this in De 
Mund. Op., p. 8, Vol. I. Mang. Σαββάτου is the reading of 
& ABCD and must be adopted. So Lachm., Tisch., ete. 
But σαββώτων would also mean “a week.” Of. Matt. xxviii. 1; 
Mark xvi. 9; Luke xviii. 12; Acts xx. 7. The Jews do not 
appear to have had a distinct name for every day of the week. 
Cf. Winer, RWB, s.v. Woche, The day of rest lent its name 
to the whole week, and every day was named in reference to 
the day which consecrated all. The Apostle designates the 
Lord’s Day by its Jewish name. It is not named in the New 
Test. the Sabbath. Ignatius (Ad Magnes. 9) says the gener- 
ality of Christians did not sabbatize (μηδὲν σαββατίζοντες). 
In Rev. i. 10 the name is ἡ κυριακὴ ἡμέρα. Similarly in 
“Didache,” c. 14, κατὰ κυριακὴν Κυρίου, where the redundant 
expression proves that ἡ κυριακή had already become a merely 
formal designation. In Barn., Hp. 15, the antitype of the 
Jewish Sabbath is said to be, not the Lord’s Day, but the 
millennium. Justin Martyr (Apol. I. 67) does not hesitate to 
use the heathen name Sunday (τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ), 
because the usual name, “ The Lord’s Day,” would have been 
unintelligible to the person whom he was addressing. But the 
Jewish Sabbath must have been well known to the Emperor, 
and would, therefore, have been used by Justin if the Christian 
“Day of the Lord” was in any way identical with the Sabbath. 
So also Tertullian (Ad Nationes I. 13) speaks of the Day of 
the Sun in addressing the Gentiles. Cf. Apul. 16, “die Solis 


464 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


leetitice indulgemus.” Pliny’s statement (Zp. X. 97) that the 
Christians were accustomed to meet “ stato die” implies that 
the day was fixed by the Christians themselves. We may infer 
that the writers of the New Test. and the early Church did 
not regard the Lord’s Day as in any sense a perpetuation of 
the Jewish Sabbath. The inference is supported by what is 
told us in Eus., Hist. Eccles. III. 27, of the Ebionite Christians, 
who kept holy the seventh day and commemorated the resur- 
rection of Christ on the first day with their brethren who did 
not observe the Sabbath. The two days must, therefore, have 
been distinct inidea. Our passage is the earliest mention of 
a religious use of the first day of the week. Its observance 
was at last decreed by Constantine, a.p. 321. 

map ἑαυτῷ, “at his own house.” Cf. Herodot. VI. 86, 
θέσθαι παρά ce. The act. τεθέναι also occurs in this sense of 
depositing money. 

θησαυρίζων, “storing,” that is, adding somewhat to the 
amount of his contribution. The Apostle does not enjoin a 
public collection in the Church (as Hstius, Hodge, etc., sup- 
pose), not because the Christians had no public assemblies on 
the Lord’s Day, but probably because they transferred to the 
Lord’s Day the Jewish observance of not giving or receiving 
money on the Sabbath (Philo, De Virtut. p. 569, Vol. II. Mang.). 
The reason why he enjoins them to lay by on the Lord’s Day 
must be sought in the previous discussion concerning the ~ 
resurrection. The doctrine of the resurrection is an assurance 
that their labour will not be in vain; and the proof of that 
doctrine is the resurrection of Christ, which is, therefore, fitly 
commemorated by good deeds. He speaks in the spirit of 
the Athenians who considered nothing else a festival than 
doing their duty. Cf. Thue. I. 70; Orig., Contra Cels, VIII. 21. 
In the time of Tertullian (Apol. 39) the money intended for 
the poor was laid aside once a month. 

ὅ τι may be subject of εὐοδῶται (as in Hat. VI. 73, εὐοδώθη 
τὸ πρῆγμα) or accus. of nearer reference, “in whatever he 
may prosper.” Cf. Rom. i. 10, εὐοδωθήσομαι. The Vulg. has 
quod ei placuerit, a meaning which εὐοδοῦσθαν never bears. 
The only possible meaning is that every man should lay in 
store a fitting portion of the gains he made in business. The 
Churches of Macedonia were giving above their power out of 


PERSONAL AND INCIDINTAL MATTERS.—kXvI. 1-3. 465 


their poverty (cf. 2 Cor. vii. 2,3). The Corinthians are asked 
to give out of their abundance and only what may be over 
and above. 

iva μὴ κιτιλ. The motive usually assigned for the Apostle’s 
wish not to have collections after his arrival is his anxiety to 
devote the time of his stay at Corinth to the more important 
duty of spiritual edification. This is hardly satisfactory, as 
he expected to tarry awhile, if not also to winter, at Corinth, 
which would afford ample time. Perhaps he wished by not 
even collecting the money himself, no less than by appointing 
members of the Church to convey the gift to Jerusalem, to 
obviate the possibility of his being charged with misappropria- 
ting it. 

V.3. ὅταν δὲ παραγένωμαι, “but as soon as 1 arrive” (cf. 
xv. 28). The distress in Jerusalem was urgent. This is an 
additional reason for making the collection before he came. 

ovs ἐάν. Cf. note on vi. 18. 

δοκιμάσητε. Cf. 2 Cor. viii. 22. The Apostle nominated 
and the Church confirmed his choice, in accordance with the 
autonomy of the Christian épavos. 

δι ἐπιστολῶν. Most expositors from Chrys. and Ambrosi- 
aster to De Wette and Meyer connect these words with 
πέμψω. Calvin, Beza, Estius, and the Revised Version con- 
nect them with δοκιμάσητε. In the latter case the meaning 
is that the Corinthian Church will authorize the messengers to 
act on its behalf; in the former case the Apostle undertakes 
to give the messengers letters of introduction to the Church 
in Jerusalem. It is difficult to see what apostolical authoriza- 
tion to bear a gift from one Church to another the messengers 
need have. On the other hand, the Apostle’s extreme care to 
avoid the possibility of being charged with dishonesty by his 
unscrupulous enemies (cf. 2 Cor. viii. 20) would render it ad- 
visable, perhaps indispensable, that the Church should accredit 
the messengers by letter. That the messengers should be 
approved by the Church was important to him at Corinth; 
that the Church should send a written statement by them 
would be important to him at Jerusalem. Churches were in 
the habit of giving letters of commendation (cf. 2 Cor. iii. 2). 
The plural ἐπιστολαί may denote one letter or several letters 
(cf. Poppo’s note on Thue. 1, 129). 

HE 


466 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


τούτους, emphatic: their own delegates and no others. 

χάριν, “ oift of kindness,” as in 2 Cor. viii. 7 compared with 
ver. 9. The Corinthians could not read this without bemg 
reminded of that ‘gift of kindness” to which the name is 
most fittingly applied, the grace of their Lord Jesus Christ, 
who being rich for their sakes became poor. 

V. 4. ἄξιον. Expositors explain it of the amount of the 
gift. But the word may mean “becoming,” as in 2 Thess. 
i.3. The Apostle hesitated to go himself from a sense of deli- 
cacy and fear of being obtrusive, not from any notion that it 
would be unworthy an Apostle to carry a small sum. He did 
go, however. Cf. Rom. xv. 25; Acts xxi. 17. 


B. Of the Apostle’s Intention to come to Corinth. 
(5-9). 


V.5. His previous intention was to come direct to Corinth 
(2 Cor.i. 15) and proceed from Corinth to Macedonia, then 
return from Macedonia to Corinth and be escorted by the 
Corinthians on his way to Judea. It would seem from iv. 19 
(where see note) that this was his plan when he wrote the 
former part of this Epistle. He changed his mind, he tells 
them in 2 Cor. i. 23, in order to spare them. He wished to 
‘give them time, while he would be in Macedonia, to heal their 
‘divisions, to deliver to Satan the incestuous man, and to amend 
‘their conduct in the assemblies of the Church. He went from 
Ephesus to Troas, crossed into Macedonia (2 Cor. 11. 12, 13), 
where he wrote the Second Hpistle to the Corinthians, and by 
-a detour in Illyricum came at last to Corinth in the beginning 
of winter. Cf. Acts xx. 3; Rom. xv. 19. 

V 6. διέρχομαι, pres., to express that he is now preparing 
‘to come; not here pres. for future, as in Luke xxiii. 29. Cf. 
Rom. xv. 25, πορεύομαι, “ proficisci cogito” (Fritzsche), John 
xi, 8, ὑπάγεις. | 

πρὸς ὑμᾶς. Πρός with accus. often means “ with,” but 
implies, not merely nearness (as with dat.), but intercourse. 
Cf. Xen,, Mem. 11. iv. 7, πρὸς τοὺς φίλους, “in amicorum 
-consuetudine; ”-John i.1; Gal.i.18. Osiander is incorrect in 


PERSONAL AND INCIDENTAL MATTERS.—XVI. 3-9. 467 





thinking a verb of motion must be supplied. Cf. Bernhardy, 
W.S. p. 265; Winer, Gr. ὃ XLIX. h. 

τυχόν, “perhaps ;”’ that is, if he need not accompany the 
messengers to Jerusalem. Here only in the New Test., but 
occurring in class. writers. Cf. xiv. 10, εἰ τύχοι. 

προπέμψητε. Cf. Acts xv. 3; xvii. 10; Rom. xv. 24; 3 
John 6. ‘The ὑμεῖς is emphatic: “you who now grieve me.” 
The Apostle hoped his wintermg with them would confirm 
their loyalty and cement their friendship. 

ov, “whither.” So in Matt. xxviii. 16; οὗ for of is late 
Greek. Cf. Rutherford’s Phrynichus, XXX. It is startling to 
find that the Apostle has some thoughts of tarrying a consi- 
derable time in Corinth. His protracted absence made it im- 
pussible to send the collection partly made before Pentecost to 
Jerusalem before winter. All this lends an air of plausibility 
to the complaints of some at Corinth. He considers it neces- 
sary to rebut the charge of fickleness (cf. 2 Cor. i. 17). 

V.'7. Τῇ he had come to Corinth, as he intended at first, on 
his way (ἐν παρόδῳ) to Macedonia, he could not have remained 
long in Corinth. A short stay was unadvisable in the present 
state of feeling in that Church. 

ἄρτι, “just at present ;” that is, so long as things continue 
in their present condition. We cannot infer from the word 
ἄρτι that he had previously paid them a short visit subse- 
quently to the stay of eighteen months recorded in Acts xviii. 
11, nor that he is declaring his intention to pay them a short 
visit at a future time. ‘The opposition implied in ἄρτι is 
between the actual state of the Corinthian Church and its 
supposed condition when the Apostle formed the design now 
relinquished of visiting Corinth in transitu. The phrase ἐν 
παρόδῳ occurs in Thucydides and Polybius. 

ἐπιτρέψῃ. So δ ABC, Vulg. (permiserit). D has ἐπι- 
τρέπῃ. s 

V.8. The Epistle was, therefore, written at Ephesus 
shortly before Pentecost. There is no intimation in Acts 
xx. 1 that the Apostle left Ephesus earlier than he intended 
in consequence of the tumult that had arisen in the city. 

V.9, ‘The metaphorical meaning of θύρα has so completely 
put out of sight the natural meaning that the adjectives 
μεγάλη and ἐνεργής need occasion no difficulty. It means 


468 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTIIANS. 


opportunities to preach the Gospel without hindrance. These 
opportunities were ample (μεγώλη) and the Apostle made 
effectual use of them (ἐνεργής). Cf. Acts xix. 11-20. 

ἀνέῳγε, “stands open.” Good Attic writers prefer ἀνέῳ- 
γμαι, but. dvéwya occurs in Josephus, Plutarch, Lucian, ete. 

ἀντικείμενοι. The muttering of the storm that burst in the 
tumult of Demetrius (cf. Acts xix.). Immediately when ampler, 
opportunities offer for preaching the Gospel, adversaries sud- 
denly arise. 


C. Of the coming of Timotheus and Apollos to Corinth. 
(10-12). 

V.10. Cf. note on iv. 17. The Apostle had sent Timotheus 
from Ephesus to Macedonia, and desired him to continue his 
journey to Corinth. Timotheus was on the journey when St. 
Paul wrote our Epistle. We should have expected, therefore, 
ὅταν rather than éav,—‘ when ” rather than “if he comes,” 
unless we render ἐών by “when,” a Hebraism that occurs 
sometimes in Hellenistic Greek. But if Timotheus heard in 
Macedonia of the hostile attitude of many in the Corinthian 
Church towards the Apostle, he would naturally feel as much 
reluctance to visit Corinth as the Apostle himself. In fact 
he did not come! For he was with the Apostle at Philippi 
shortly afterwards, when the Second Epistle to the Corinthians 
was written (cf. 2 Cor. i.1). He is with the Apostle when 
he writes the Epistle to the Romans from Corinth (cf. Rom. 
Xvi. 21). 

βλέπετε ἵνα. The class. phrase would have been ὁρᾶτε 
ὅπως. 

ἀφόβως. Adverbs are sometimes predicates after εἶναι and 
γίγνεσθαι, both when they are used impersonally with tive 


1 On this point the arguments of Bp. Lightfoot in the Journal of Classical 
and Sacred Phiiology, Vol. IL. pp. 198, seqq., are to my mind convincing, 
“ Timotheus is represented. in the Acts (xix. 22) as being sent with Erastus 
into Macedonia, as if the sacred historian were not aware of his journey being 
continued to Corinth.” Again, “ If Timotheus had actually visited Corinth, he 
must have brought back some information as to the state of the Church there.” 
But “there is not the slightest inkling of any knowledge obtained through 
Timotheus on any subject whatever.”” Once more, “In one passage where St. 
Paul is enumerating visits paid to the Corinthians, the name of Timotheus 
does not occur (2 Cor. xii. 17, 18).” 


PERSONAL AND INCIDENTAL MATTERS.—xXvVI. 9-12. 469 





and when they are personal verbs. Cf. Ast., Zea. Plat. I. p. 
395. Various reasons have been assigned for Timotheus’ fear, 
—his youth (Meyer), his timid disposition (De Wette, Alford), 
etc. In addition to these the present distracted condition of 
the Church in Corinth would cause him anxiety. 

V.11. The Apostle claims for Timotheus for his work’s 
sake the love and respect which some at least were willing 
even in Corinth to accord to the Apostle himself, 

ἐν εἰρήνῃ, that is, with the blessing of the Church, “ peace 
be with thee.” Cf. Clem. Rom., Ad Cor. 65, ἐν εἰρήνῃ ava- 
πέμψατε. It denotes much more than safety. Cf.i.3; Acts 
xv. 33. The Apostle wished Timotheus to return without 
delay to Ephesus, intending probably to leave him there while 
he would be in Macedonia and Achaia. As Timotheus did 
not come to Corinth, this plan was frustrated. 

μετὰ τῶν ἀδελφῶν. We do not know who the brethren 
were. Hrastus, who had accompanied Timotheus from Ephe- 
sus, could not be one of them; for his home was in Corinth. 

V.12. It appears, then, that Apollos had returned from 
Corinth (iii. 6) to Ephesus, where now he was with the 
Apostle. St. Paul’s friendliness is only more admirable than 
the wise caution of Apollos, who held back lest some in 
Corinth might make his presence an excuse for dissension. 
If Paul and Apollos were leaders of opposite factions, would 
either of them have acted as each is here said to have done? 
Cf. note on i. 12. 

θέλημα. Cf. note on vii. 37. It is followed by ἕνα, which 
expresses the object of the wish. Cf. Matt. xviii. 14; John 
vi. 39, 40. 

μετὰ TOV ἀδελφῶν, that is, the brethren that carried the 
Epistle from Ephesus to Corinth. Stanley argues with great 
plausibility that they were Titus and his companions, men- 
tioned in 2 Cor. vili. 18, 22, 23. At least the Apostle learnt 
from Titus how his Epistle had been received in Corinth 
(2 Cor. ii, 12; vii. 6). The alacrity of Titus contrasts with | 
the reluctance of Apollos. Cf. 2 Cor. viii. 17. 

εὐκαιρήσῃ, ‘ when he has a good opportunity.” A vague 
expression is used to avoid stating what was probably the 
cause of the extreme reluctance shown by Apollos to comply 
with the Apostle’s entreaties. Σ᾽ χολάξω expresses the more 


470 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


definite notion of “having leisure.” So εὐκαιρία, which is 
classical (εὐκαιρῶ does not, I think, occur before Polybius), 
has a wider range of meaning than σχολή. 


D. A Summary of the Practical Lessons of the Epistle. 
(13, 14). 


These verses are not connected with what immediately pre- 
cedes or follows. The state of the Corinthian Church presents 
itself before the Apostle’s mind—a state of spiritual lethargy, 
vucillation, childish weakness and selfishness. In the fore- 
frout of his exhortation the Apostle places watchfulness or 
rather, perhaps, wakefulness; for γρηγορεῖν (synonymous with 
ἀγρυπνεῖν, Eph. vi. 18) is the peculiarly Christian alertness 
which Christ in His later ministry urges upon His disciples 
(cf. Matt. xxiv. 42; xxv. 13). It assumed especially the form 
of watching for the coming of the Lord or against the approach 
of the Enemy (1 Pet. v. 8); then, in a more general sense, 1 
meant that activity and energy of soul which constitutes the 
- power of the religious life in its realization of spiritual things 
and in prayer. It is the Christian form of the spirit’s search 
for truth, which makes agnosticism keenly painful. In the next 
place, the Apostle exhorts the Corinthians to maintain stead- 
fastness in faith. Because Christ has revealed God, the Christ- 
lan is not only watching for a revelation to come, but also 
calm and strong of faith in the ‘revelation given. But the 
Corinthians were vacillating (cf. xv. 58). Again, an insecure 
grasp of the verities of faith left them morally weak. The voice 
of conscience was not heard; sin was less loathsome than if 
had been; temptations were gaining the mastery. The third 
exhortation of the Apostle is, therefore, that they should quit 
them as men and be strong. (Some expositors consider all 
these words to be military metaphors. This narrows the 
meaning too much). Finally, selfish factions were the natural 
result of their moral weakness, and the parting exhortation 
of the Epistle is that they should live in the atmosphere of 
Christian love. 

V.13. γρηγορῶ is formed from the perf. éypyyopa and does 
not occur in Attic writers. Cf. Rutherford’s Vhrynichus, XCV. 
Κραταιῷ is Hellenistic for κρατύνω. Cf. Ps. xxx. (xxxi.) 25. 


PERSONAL AND INCIDENTAL MATTERS.—XvVI. 12-15. 471 


KH. A kindly recommendation of Stephanas and others to their 
brotherly regard. 


(15-18). 


V. 15. οἴδατε . . . ἑαυτούς is undoubtedly parenthe- 
tical. It gives the reason for the exhortation that follows. 

ἀπαρχή, “ first-fruits.” This is usually explained to mean 
that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in 
the province of Achaia. But how could this be, seeing that 
Dionysius and Damaris had already believed in Athens, before 
the Apostle came to Corinth? Cf. Acts xvii. 34. Similarly 
the Thessalonians, according to a strongly attested reading, 
are said in 2 Thess. ii. 13 to be the first-fruits of Macedonia, 
though they were not the first converts there. The expression 
seems, therefore, to be used of whatever bears a promise of 
the coming harvest, and it does not mean only the first sheaf. 
To the Apostle’s mind the pledge of a future Church came 
not in Athens, but in Corinth, and with the conversion of a 
whole family. Cf. Alian, Var. Hist. I. 31, where τρωκτὰ 
ὡραῖα καὶ Tas ἄλλας ἀπαρχὰς τῶν ἐπιχωρίων seems to mean 
“ripe apples, and the other best native fruits.” 

eis . . . ἑαυτούς, “laid themselves out for service to the 
saints.” In 2 Cor. ix. 1 the collection for the Church in Jeru- 
salem is called ἡ διακονία ἡ εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους. But, while this 
is probably included in the work done by Stephanas, we need 
not restrict it to this. Heinrici’s surmise is natural, that the 
Church met in the house of Stephanas. Afterwards it met 
in the house of Gaius. Cf. Rom. xvi. 23. ‘The words ἔταξαν 
ἑαυτούς do not denote earnestness so much as a voluntary 
setting themselves apart to the work. Cf. Plat., Rep. 11. 
p. 371, ἑαυτοὺς ἐπὶ τὴν διακονίαν τάττουσι, “who take the 
duty upon themselves.” We may perhaps recognise in this 
spontaneous service the beginning of office in the Corinthian 
Church, especially when such faithfulness and zeal received 
the Apostle’s special approval (cf. 1 Thess. v.12). But Ritschl 
is not justified in inferring that the family of Stephanas 
were presiding officers in the Corinthian Church. It is in 
Clement’s Epistle that we first meet with government by 
presbytery in- Corinth. 


472 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


V. 16. twa. Cf. note oni. 10. 

καὶ ὑμεῖς, “ that you also, on your part, may put yourselves 
in subjection to such men (τοιούτοις) as have shown zeal in 
serving you.” 

ὑποτάσσησθε. The slight play on τάσσω and ὑποτάσσω is 
intentional. 

συνεργοῦντι, not “labouring with me,” nor “ labouring with 
the household of Stephanas,”’ but generally “ labouring in the 
common work of the Gospel.” Cf. Col. iv. 11; 3 John 8. 

κοπίωντι. Many work, a few toil. 

V.17. We may fairly suppose that Stephanas, Fortunatus, 
and Achaicus had been the bearers of the letter of the Cor- 
inthian Church to the Apostle. They were, consequently, the 
slaves of Chloe (cf. i. 11). Fortunatus isa Latin name. The 
Fortunatus mentioned by Clement (Ad Cor. 65), more than 
thirty years after this, may have been another person. Achaicus 
is a name that seldom occurs. It was given to L. Mummius. 
But the Christian Achaicus was probably a slave. Slaves 
often received their name from the country of their birth. 
That there were slaves among the Corinthian Christians we 
know from vii. 21. 

TO ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα, not “that which was lacking on your 
part ” (Revised Vers.), but ‘‘my lack of you.” Ὑμῶν is ob- 
jective genit. BCD read ὑμέτερον. But the meaning is the 
same (cf. note on xv. 31). An antithesis is intended between 
παρουσία and ὑστέρημα. The presence of these brethren 
supplied the want which the Apostle felt in consequence of 
his absence from Corinth. I do not see what could be lacking 
on the part of the Corinthians which Stephanas and his two 
friends could supply at Ephesus. © 

V.18. ἀνέπαυσαν, “refreshed.”? Cf. 2 Cor. vii. 18. 

τὸ ὑμῶν, not “they refreshed your spirit by bringing this 
my Epistle to you” (Grot), nor “they refreshed your spirit 
by bringing your letter to me,” but “ they refreshed your spirit 
by refreshing mine ” (so Theophyl., Osiand., De Wette, etc.). 

ἐπιγνώσκετε, “acknowledge fully.” Cf. εἰδέναι, 1 Thess. 
v. 12. He means that such men, though slaves, should be 
held in highest honour in the Church. Cf. xiii. 12.. 


PERSONAL AND INCIDENTAL MATTERS.—XVI. 15-20. 473 


F. Salutations. 
(19, 20). 


V. 19. ai ἐκκλησίαι, plur., because every congregation of 
believers is a Church. Cf. vii. 17. 

Ἀσίας, that is, Proconsular Asia, comprehending Mysia, 
Lydia and Caria. Cicero (Pro Flace. 27) includes Phrygia 
also, which is excluded in Acts ii. 10; xvi. 6. Ephesus, where 
the Apostle had been now dolowneanie for three years, was the 
capital of the province. During two of the three years “he 
reasoned daily . . . so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard 
the word of the Lord” (Acts xix. 9, 10). Even if the Asia 
of the New Test. is not Proconsular Asia, but only Lydia, 
from the Caicus to the Meander (which is not quite satis- 
factorily proved by Lewin, Life of St. Paul, Vol. 1. p. 192), 
it will still contain Laodicea, Hierapolis and Colossee. 

Ἀκύλας καὶ Πρίσκα (named also Πρίσκιλλα in Acts xviii. 
2). They were Jews, who had been living in Rome. When 
compelled to quit Rome in consequence of the banishment of 
the Jews under Clandius, they came to Corinth, where the 
Apostle worked with them at his trade (ef. Acts xvii. 1-3). 
They left Corinth in the Apostle’s company and were now 
dwelling in Ephesus. After this we find them again in Rome. 

σὺν... ἐκκλησίᾳ is explained by the alae expositors 
(Chrys., Theod., Calvin, Grot.) and Riickert to mean that all 
the members oP this family were believers. But the word σύν 
is fatal to this interpretation. The meaning undoubtedly is 
that a Christian congregation was in the habit of meeting 
in Aquila’s house in Ephesus, as afterwards in Rome. Cf. 
Acts xii. 12; Rom. xvi. 5; Cot. iv.15, Similarly the house of 
Philemon, another wealthy man was the home of a Christian 
Church (Philem. 2). The Christians, like some other ἐρα- 
νισταί, met in dwelling-houses. Bp. Lightfoot (on Col. iv. 15) 
says there is no clear ‘example of a separate building set apart 
for Christian worship within the limits of the Roman Empire 
before the third century. 

V. 20. πάντες, not the Christians that met in Aquila’s 
house only, but all the Christians in Ephesus sent their 
greetings. 


474 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


ἐν φιλήματι ἁγίῳ, “in a holy kiss.”’? The ἐν is not quite 
synon. with an instrumental dat. The salutation is a holy 
kiss. On this Hebrew mode of salutation as it passed into the 
Christian Church cf. Rom. xvi. 16; 2 Cor. xiii. 12; 1 Thess. v. 
26. Justin M. (Apol. I. 65) says the kiss was given at the end 
of the prayers and before the celebration of the Eucharist. At 
a subsequent time it followed the oblation. From Tert., De 
Orat. 14, we know that it was meant to be a token of peace; 
it sometimes went by the name of ἡ εἰρήνη, and in Cyprian 
(Zp. 54) the Eucharist itself is called “ pax,’ when given 
to the lapsed. It was, therefore, peculiarly fitting that the 
distracted Church of Corinth should not omit this Christian 
salutation. It is called a holy kiss, not to mark its sincerity 
and distinguish it from the kiss of Judas (Chrys. Hom. 30 in 
2 Cor. ; Origen in Rom. p. 683), but to denote its religious and 
Christian character. Itis τὸ ἐν Κυρίῳ φίλημα (Const. Apost. 
II. 57, ad fin.), ὅπερ ἔχρην εἶναι μυστικόν (Clem. Alex., Ped, 
III. p. 301 Potter). Cf. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. 23, μὴ 
ὑπολάβῃς τὸ φίλημα ἐκεῖνο σύνηθες εἶναι τοῖς ἐπ᾽ ἀγορᾶς 
γίνομενοις ὑπὸ τῶν κοινῶν φίλων. For this reason it was 
allowed to fall into desuetude with reluctance. Abuse of 
it was guarded against, by kissing, for instance, the covered 


hand only. 


G. Concluding Warning and Prayer. 
(21-24). 


V. 21. δάσπασμός, “ the (usual) salutation” at the end 
of a letter. The Apostle dictated the body of his Epistles 
to an amanuensis (cf. Rom. xvi. 22). He wrote the saluta- 
tion with his own hand for authentication (cf. 2 Thess. ii. 
17). The Epistle to the Galatians, entirely or in part, and 
the Epistle to Philemon he wrote with his own hand (cf. Gal. 
vi. 11; Philem. 19). 

Παύλου, not genit. after ἀσπασμός (Kling), but in ap- 
position to the genit. of the personal pronoun implied in the 
possessive ἐμῇ (cf. Jelf, Gr. § 467, 4). . 

V. 22. οὐ φιλεῖ, a positive notion: “hates.” Cf. note on 
vii. 9. Hence the Apostle here uses φιλῶ, which expresses 
natural affection, rather than ἀγαπῶ, the usual word for 


PERSONAL AND INCIDENTAL MATTERS.—XVI. 20-24. 475 





Christian love. He is thinking of a deep-seated antipathy, 
a malignant hatred of Jesus Christ, such a hatred as filled 
the heart of the Emperor Julian, or provoked Voltaire to utter 
the terrible words, “ Ecrasez Vinfame.” Cf. Luke xxii. 18. 
The Apostle does not accuse the Corinthian Christians of 
hating Christ. He states in a brief, solitary sentence the 
possible consequence of faction and sensuality and selfishness. 

ἤτω, late for ἔστω.  Stallbaum substitutes ἔστω for it in 
Plat., Rep. II. p. 861. Cf. James v, 12. The imperative is 
concessive. Cf. note on vil. 15. For the crime of hating 
Christ there can be no other punishment than that the curse 
imprecated on Christ should fall on the imprecator: ‘‘ Be it 
so.” For ἀνάθεμα cf. note on xii. 3. So πόμα for πῶμα, x. 4. 

Mapav ἀθά, Kast Arameean (the dialect of Jerusalem) for 
“Our Lord is come,” or “ will come.” If the former, the 
reference is to the incarnation; if the latter, to the second 
coming. ‘The latter is the more probable meaning. Cf. Phil. 
iv. 5, ὁ Κύριος ἐγγύς. Certain and swift vengeance overtakes 
the blasphemer. But the words have a meaning apart from 
their connection with this anathema. The Apostle’s spirit is 
filled, as he closes his great arguments, with a solemn, joyful 
hope of the Lord’s coming. The enthusiasm of the gift of 
tongues takes possession of him and impels him to mystic 
utterance. His words from hallowed associations carry with 
them a meaning beyond what meets the ear. The air is filled 
with awe-inspiring voices premonitory of the coming of the 
Lord. 


“The Spirit came upon us. From our lips 
Burst the strange mystic speech of other lands. 
We too cried Abba! Lord of Sabaoth! 
We too could raise the Hallelujah chant; 
And from our feeble tongues in wondrous tones, 
As of the voice of trumpet, loud and long, 
The mighty Marauatha smote the air.” 
(Dean Plumptre.) 


..cuce the word Maranatha soon came to be used with Amen 
_ at the end of a public prayer. Cf. “ Didache ” 10. 

V. 23. But the spirit of the prophet is subject to the 
prophet. From mystic utterance the Apostle calmly passes to 
the closing prayer that the grace of Christ should abide with 


476 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


them. The risen Christ is the source of all spiritual blessings. 
Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 9. The μετά here expresses more than the 
dative of i. 3. It means ever-abiding intercourse, which is 
the strongest possible contrast to the utter rejection implied 
in the anathema of ver. 22, and the anticipation by faith of 
the second coming of the Lord to which maran atha refers. 
It is ‘the grace of Jesus Christ,” inasmuch as the love of 
God becomes an actual gift to man through Christ. 

VY. 24. After solemn warning and sharp rebuke, as their 
father in Christ Jesus, he assures them of his love. It em- 
braces all, even those that stirred a factious spirit against 
his authority ; for his authority over them sprang from their 
common union with Christ Jesus. 

The subscription in the received text has no MS. authority 
older than the eighth century. The notion that the Hpistle 
was written from Philippi arose probably from a misunder- 
standing of διέρχομαι, ver. 5. The subscriptions (ὑπογραφαῖ) 
to St. Paul’s Epistles are ascribed, in their simplest forms, to 
Kuthalius, deacon of Alexandria in the fifth century. 


ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 


i. 4. : 
εὐχαριστῶςἘ Cf. Rutherford’s Phrynichus, XI.: “ The 


meaning gratias agere is first attached to the verb in Poly- 
bius.” 


iii, 9. 
οἰκοδομή. It should have been noticed that Aristotle uses 
the word in the meaning of οἰκοδόμησις, “ the act of building,” 
not as synon. with οἰκοδόμημα, “a house.” Olxodopety will 


give us οἰκοδομία, which is used in class. Greek in both mean- 
ings, but not οἰκοδομή. 
iii. 11, 

κείμενον. The rule that κεῖμαι is the perfect passive of 
τίθημι is observed in Attic Greek, in which τέθειμαι is always 
middle in meaning. But in the New Test. τέθειμαι occurs as 
a passive verb (Mark xv. 47,in ABCD). We are therefore 
justified in combining the intransitive with the passive mean- 
ing of κείμενον in our passage. 


iv. 1, 
ὑπηρέτας. On the patristic use of the word cf. Canon 
Brigkt’s Canons of the First Four General Oouncils, Notes, p. 


iv. 13. 


περικάθαρμα. De Wette’s objection to the supposition that 


the Apostle alludes to the custom of offering sacrifice to avert 
417 | 


478 THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. 


disease, viz., that the custom had ceased long before the 
Apostle’s time, seems to be refuted by a prohibition of 
this very thing in the recently discovered ‘‘ Didache,” or 
“Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” chap. 3, μὴ γίνου περι- 
καθαίρων. The form of the prohibition in the ‘ Apostolical 
Constitutions,” VII. 6, shows that a humau sacrifice is meant 
in this prohibition: οὐκ éom . . . περικαθαίρων τὸν υἱόν 
gov. It is evident that the custom existed after the Apostle’s 
ae 
iv. 18. 


ἐρχομένου. In Attic ἐών is the pres. part. of ἔρχομαι, not 
ἐρχόμενος, and for ἐλεύσομαι (ver. 19) εἶμι would be used. 


vii. 6. 
δι’ of. Cf. Philo, De Cherub. Vol. I. p. 162 Mang.: ὄργανον 


δὲ λόγον Θεοῦ δι’ οὗ κατεσκευάσθη [ὁ κόσμος]. 


xi 10. 

γένη γλωσσῶν. The apparent discrepancy between the 
Apostle’s description of the spiritual gifts and the account in 
the Book of Acts has been turned into an argument against 
the Lukian authorship of the Acts; but the argument has very 
little foree. If a writer in the second century, having St. 
Paul’s Epistles before him, wished to prove that St. Paul was 
in perfect agreement with the other Apostles, would he not 
have been careful to identify the results of their preaching with 
the results which he found ascribed to St. Paul’s ministry ? 


ἈΠ 8. 
οὐθέν. This form of οὐδέν is said to occur in an inscription 
as early as B.c. 378. Cf. Rutherford’s Phrynichus, CLX. 


xiv. 5. 
ἐκτὸς εἰ μή. For a similar pleonastic use of the negative 
cf. Dem., De Oor. p. 241, πλὴν οὐκ ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτούς. 
xiv. 23. 


ἰδιῶται. The view suggested in the commentary that the 
Apostle means “ separatists” receives some measure of con- 


ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS. 479 


firmation from the fact that ἐδιώτης was used as the designa- 
tion of a person who was not member of an épavos. 


xiv. 34. 


ἐπιτρέπεται. The word may allude, not only to the Christ- 
ian Churches, but to the Jewish synagogue. Cf. Vitringa, 
De Syn. Vet. p. 46: “ Mulier in synagogé non leget propter 
honorem ccetus.” 


pp. 386, 387. 


The Apostle’s conception of the personal unit consisting of 
body and soul may be contrasted also with the Stoical com- 
parison of the body to the weaver’s shuttle or the driver’s 
whip or the writer’s pen. Cf. M. Anton. X. xxxviii. 


Sv 20. 


The student will not fail to observe the difference between 
this doctrine of St. Paul and the theory that Christ’s hu- 
manity was necessary only as the altar is necessary to hold 
the sacrifice. 


xv. 50, p. 450. 


The enemies of the Church understood the Christian doctrine 
of the resurrection in a thoroughly materialistic sense. The 
ashes of martyrs were cast into rivers in order to make their 
resurrection an impossibility. Cf. Huseb., Hist. Hecles. V. 1. 
Popular Christian legends, on the other hand, declare that the 
bodies of martyrs are not entirely destroyed, that their resur- 
rection may be possible. 





TN D EX, 





Accusative with χρῆσθαι, vii. 31; 
of inverse attraction, x. 16. 

Adam, xv. 22, 45. 

Adverbs, xii. 31; xvi. 10. 

Ailian, cited, i. 22; xi. 22; 
15. 

Aion, i. 20; xv. 24. 

Agapé, xi. 20; xiv. 15. 

Agnosticism, pagan, xv. 35. 

A Lapidé, Introd. § 39. 

Alexandria, not visited by St. 
Paul, Introd. § 1; Hellenism 
at, 7b. 8 20; school of, i. 20; 
Church of, ii. 6. 

Alford, Dean, Introd. § 44. 

Allegorical system of interpreta- 
tion, ii. 14. 

Allegory, v. 7; x. 4. 

Alms, xvi. l. 

Altar, ix. 13. 

Ambrose, Abp., on Christ eternal, 
i. 24; on Son’s subordination, 
iii. 23; reply to Monica, x. 32 ; 
forbids wine at festivals in 
honour of martyrs, xi. 21. 

Ambrosiaster, commentary on 
Epistle, Introd. § 29. 

Amer, xiv. 16. 

Analogy, xv. 35 sqq. 

Anathema, xii. 3. 


XVI. 


481 


Angels, included in the “ world,” 
vi. 3; judged by saints, vi. 3; 
present in Church assemblies, 
xi. 10; fallen, destroyed by 
Christ, xv. 24. é 

Antiphonal singing,-xiv. 27. 

Antoninus, M., x. 27, et al. 

Aorist, for perf. ii. 10,12; xv 
32; subjunctive, as fut. perf. 
vii. 28; ἔγνω, viii. 2; passive, 
in a reflexive sense, x. 2; 
inchoative, xi. 21. 

Apollinarianism, in the doctrine 
that ‘flesh’? means the ma- 
terial body, iii. 1; in Baur’s 
view that St. Paul represents 
Christ as being man in His 
pre-existent state, xv. 47. 

Apollos, Introd. ὃ 5; i. 12; iv.6; 
5 Soa 

Apologue of the members, xii.14. 

Aquila and Prisca, Introd. 
§ 5; xvi. 19. 

Aquinas, as commentator, In- 
trod. § 31; on knowing God, 
xiii. 12. , 

Aristotle, his standard of morals, 
ii. 15; on vods, ii. 16; on 
συγγνώμη, vii. 6; on slavery, 
vii. 22; on προαίρεσις, viii. 35 

rs 


482 


on body, xii. 18, 22; on “ high- 
mindedness,”’ xiil. 4. 

Arius, his doctrine that the Son 
cannot investigate the Father’s 
nature, ii. 16. 

Arnold, Dr., on 
Usa: A. 

Article, the, distinction between 
Χριστός and ὃ X., i. 13; dis- 


tinction between πνεῦμα and 


Sacraments, 


τὸ 7., 11. 13; ναός, “the temple,” 
11. 163; ὃ ἔπαινος, ‘‘ the praise 
due to each,” iv. 5; ἐσχάτους, 
predicate, iv. 9; οἱ πολλοί, 
‘‘we who are many,” x. 17; 
why omitted before ἐκκλησία, 
xiv. 4. 

Asceticism, Vii. 

Asia, proconsular, xvi. 19. 

Asyndeton, in explanatory 
clauses, iv. 10. 

Athenagoras. cites the Epistle, 
Introd. § 11; calls a second 
marriage a specious adultery, 
vil. 8. 

Athens, St. Paul’s success partial 
at, Introd. § 1; ii. 3. 

Atonement, patristic doctrine of, 
Ἡ. 6. 

Attraction, of nom. into accus., 
x. 16. 

Augustine, on Christ eternal, i. 
24; on the Son’s subordina- 
tion, 111. 25; on the psychical 
man, 11. 14; on episcopal ma- 

. gistrates, vi. 1; on Christians 
marrying heathens, vii. 39; 
on being known of God, viii. 
38; his correspondence with 
Jerome, ix. 22; on identity of 
dispensations, x. 4. 

Authority based on union, xi. 3 


sqq. 


INDEX. 


Baalim, viii. 5. 

Baptism, meaning of, i. 13, 15; 
represents forgiveness and re- 
newal, vi. 11; Lutheran doe- 
trine of, vii. 14; Calvin, Beza, 
Hooker on, tb.; infant, 7b.; 
Israelites had true, x. 2; unity 
of the body formed in, xii. 13; 
for the dead, xv. 29. é 

Barbarian, xiv. 11} 

Barnabas, so called Epistle of, 
cited, 1: 2,30; vii. 29; ix. 10; 
et passim. 

Banr, F. C., Introd. § 43; i. 10; 
vi, 15; vii. 12, 14; νὴ Ὁ. 
x. 3, 4, 

Bengel, as commentator, Introd. 
§ 41. 

Betrayal of Christ, xi. 23. 

Bestiarit, iv. 9. 

Beza, on sanctification of be- 
lievers’ children, vii. 14. 

Body, a complex personality, vi. 
16; of the Lord, xi. 29; 
psychical and spiritual, xv. 44. 


᾿ Blessing, cup of, x. 16. 


Bread, sacramental, x. 16. 


Buddhist self-immolation, xiii. 3. 


Bull, Bp., denies the Israelites 
had true sacraments, x 4. 
Butler, Bp., on conscience, viii. 3. 


-Cajetan, as commentator, Introd. 


§ 35. 

Calixtus, Bishop of Rome, ori- 
ginally a slave, vii. 22. 

Calling of the Gospel, i. 1, 2, 
26; distinctions of life forms 
of the, vii. 20. 

Calvin, as commentator, Introd. 
§ 386; theory of the Supper, 
dg Ue 


Carnal man, iii. 1. 


INDEX. 


Casuistry, vii. 12. 

Celsus, scoffing allusion to fool- 
ishness of preaching, i. 20; 
anticipates Strauss, xv. 15. 

Cephas, party of, i. 12; married, 
ix. 5; saw the risen Christ, 
XV. ὅ. 

Children, sanctification of, vii. 
14. 

Christ, prayer to, i. 2; crucifixion 
of, i. 18; the power of God, 
i, 24; sonuship and mediator- 
ship of, ili. 23; pre-existence 
of, viii. 6; unselfishness of, 
xi. 1; headship of, xi. 3 sqq. ; 
second coming of, i. 7, xv. 22; 
reign of, xv. 25 sqq.; body of, 
xv. 45. 

Christianity, 
vill. 4. 

Chrysostom, on a second visit of 
St. Paul to Corinth, Introd. 
§ 6; cited, 2b. § 13; Homilies 
on Epistle, ib. § 27; et pussim. 

Church, notes of the, i. 2; power 
of excommunication rests in 
the, v. 4; the despised in the, 
to be judges, vi. 4; God’s, x. 
82; xi. 13, 22; gifts of the, 
xii.-xiv.; unity of the, xii. 
13; diversity in the, xii. 14 


heathenism and, 


564. ; the cecumenical, xii. 27; 


women to be silent in the, 
xiv. 34. 

Circumcision, vii. 18. 

Claudius, famine in reign of, 
xvi. 1. ΐ 

Clement of Alexandria, the 
Epistle cited by, Introd. § 11; 
on faith and knowledge, ii. 
6; cited, xv. 33, et passim. 

Clement of Rome, the Epistle 
cited by, Introd. § 11; on 


483 


factions at Corinth, i. 10; iii. 
16; on the resurrection, xv. 
37: his so called Epistle to 
James, vi. 1; cited, ix. 27, οἱ 
passin. 

Clementine Homilies, ii. 13. 

Clergy, di iinetion not fixed at 
this time between laity and, 
xiv. 16. 

Colet, as commentator, Introd. 
§ 33. ; 

Collection for poor saints, xvi. 1. 

Communicutio Idionatum, ii. 8. 

Communion, i. 9; x. 10. 

Comparative, not used for super- 
lative, xiii. 13. 

Concomitancy, doctrine of, xi. 
27. 

Conscience, does not justify, iv. 
4; an enlightened, implies 
knowledge and love, viii. 3; 
influence of habituation upon, 
vill. 7; a weak and a strong, 
ib.; x. 25 sqq. 

Consilia evangelica, vil. 25. 

Constantinopvli an Creed, use of 
ἐκ in, ii. 12; on the endlessness 
of Christ’s kingdom, xv. 24. 

Contentiousness, xi. 16. 

Corinth, Roman, Introd. § 2, 
vii. 37. 

Corinthians, previous letter to, 
γώ. 

Council of Jerusalem, viii. 1. 
Covenant, the new, xi. 25; with 
Abraham, xv. 50. 

Crispus, i. 14. 

Cross, offence of the, ii. 2. 

Cymbals, xiii. 1. 

Cyprian, cited on transitoriness 
of the world, vii. 31; on 
Eucharist called peace, xvi. 
20. 


484 


Cyrenaics, xv. 32. 


Damascene, John, Introd. § 30. 

Date of Epistle, xvi. 8, 24. 

Dative, of respect, 1. 18; vii. 28; 
of community, vii. 27; of 
manner, x. 30; pure, xiv. 7. 

Deaconesses, vii. 8. 

De Lyra, as commentator, 
Introd. § 32; vii. 16. 

Demons, viii. 4; x. 20. 

Deposit of truth, xi. 2, 23. 

Democracy, the Corinthian 
Church a, xii. 28. 

De Wette, Introd. § 42. 

Didache, the, cites Epistle, In- 
trod. § 12; on sacramental 
bread, x. 17 footnote ; on not 
judging the prophets, xiv. 29. 

Didymus, commentary on Epis- 
tle, Introd. § 25. 

Diodorus of Antioch, Introd. 
§ 26. 

Discernment, i. 5. 

Disciplina arcani, ii. 6. 

Discipline, Church, vi. 1 sqq. 

Diversity, unity in, xii. 12 sqq. 


Ebionitism, Introd. § 3; vii. p. 
153; xvi. p. 462. 

Eestasy, xii. 10 sqq. 

Edwards, Jonathan, on revivals, 
xii. 10; on longsuffering, 
xiii. 4. 

Ektroma, xv. 8. 

Elias, apocryphal book of, ii. 9. 

Ephesus, Kpistle written from, 
Introd. § 14. 

Fpictetus, x. 31. 

Epicareans, xv. 32. 

Epispasmus, vii. 18. 

Equity, vii. 6. 

Evranvi, xi. 22; xvi. 1. 


INDEX. 


Erasmus, Introd. § 34. 

Ksoteric and exoteric doctrine, 
the distinction not Pauline, 
ii. 6. 

Kstius, as commentator, Introd. 
§ 38. 

Eucharist, xi. 20-34; called paa, 
xvi. 20. 

Eusebius, commentary on Epis- 
tle, Introd. § 25. 

Excommunication, vested in the 
Church, iii. 12. 

Expediency, Christian, vi. 13. 


Fabiola, vii. 15. 

Factions, Introd. ae ii; . 10 566. 

Faith, knowledge and, 11. 5, 6; 
ate of, a. Oy mae me in- 
cludes trust, xiii. 13; why in- 
ferior to love, <b. 

Fatherhood of God, viii. 6. 

Fathers, the, x. 1. 

Federal holiness, vii. 14. 

Final clause, 1. 27, 29. 

First-fruits, xvi. 15. 

Flesh, “ according to the,” i. 26; 
“all,” i. 29; meaning the 


“natural in distinction from 
πνεῦμα, li. 15; has an ethical 
import, ii. 1; v. 5; in an 


unethical sense, vii. 28; dis- 
tinguished from σῶμα, xv. 39; 
will not be raised from death, 
“xv. 50. 
Florence, Cabal of, iii. 13. 
Freedom, Christian, vii. 15. 
Function, iii. 13. 


Gaius, i. 14. 

Galatiau Churches, alms of, xvi. 
Ls 

Games, Isthmian, ix. 25. 


Gehenna, iii. 15, 


INDEX. 


Genitive, of possession, i. 1, 12; 
of object, i. 6; xvi. 17; of 
relation, i. 27. 

Gentiles, xii. 2. 

Gifts, classification of, xii. 8, 28. 

Glory, »s the Christian concep- 
tion of happiness, ii. 7; Lord 
of, ii. 8; man the, of God, xi. 
7; the, of natural objects, xv. 
40, 43. 

God, a Spirit, vill. 4 sqq.; unity 
of, ib. 

Gods, many, viii. 4. 

Gospel, the, a cosmical power, 
ΚΠ 18-St.-Paul's, xv, 1: 
Grace, distinction between χάρις 
and xdpicpa, i. 7; iii. 10; 
marriage equally with celi- 
bacy the material of a, vii. 7; 
meaning thanksgiving, x. 30; 

meaning alms, xvi. 3. 

Gregory the Great, his doctrine 
of purgatory, ii. 13 foctnote. 

Greeks, seekers after truth, i. 
22; litigious, vi. 1; xi. 16. 

Grotius, Introd. ὃ 40. 


Hades, the word avoided by St. 
Paul, xv. 50. 

Hallel, cup of the, x. 16. 

Hamilton, Sir W., his misappli- 
cation of St. Paul’s words, 
xiii. 12. 

Hare, Archdeacon, on miracles, 
i. 22. 

Harp, xiv. 15. 

Head, literal.and metaphorical, 
xi. 4. 

Heathenism, two contrasts be- 
tween Christianity and, viii. 
4; sadness of, xiii. 6. 

Hegesippus, his evidence as to 
absence of fundamental differ- 


485 


ences in the Corinthian Church 
trustworthy, i. 10. 

Hellenism, Introd. § 20. 

Herbert, George, cited, xv. 82. 

Heresy, what, xi. 19. 

Hermas, Pastor of, cites Epistle, 
Introd. § 12; deprecates second 
marriages, vil. 8, 39; distin- 
guishes between preeceptu aud 
consilia, vii. 25. 

Hippolytus, his charge against 
Calixtus, vii. 22. 

Hooker, Richard, on sanctifica- 
tion of children, vii. 14; on 
Church offices, xii. 28. 

Hope, abiding, xiii. 13; 
inferior to love, 76. 

Hophal construction, 
xiii, 12, 

Hymns, xiv. 15. 


why 


viii, 3; 


Idols, what, viii. 4; ἄφωνα, xii. 
2. 

Ignatius, cites Epistle, Introd. 
§ 12; cited, vii. 22; x. 16; xiv. 
97; χΧΥΪ. 2. 

Image, distinction between glory 
and, xi. 7. 

Imperative, jussive and permis- 
sive, vii. 2. 

Imperfect tense, x. 9; xi. 23; 
iterative, xii. 2. 

Indicative with iva, iv. 6. 

Individualism, Introd. § 18. 

Infant baptism, vii. 14. 

Inspiration, vii. 12. 

Internal evidence of genuineness 
of Epistie, Introd. § 13. 

Interpretation of tongues, xii. 
10. 

Irenseus, on gift of tongues, xii. 
10. 

Irony, the Apostle’s, ii. 4; iv. 8. 


486 


Irving, Edward, xii. 10. 

Tsaiah, cited, 11.9; xiv. 21. 

Israelites, had true sacraments, 
x. 1, 4 sqq. 


Jackson, Dr. Thomas, on the ma- 
’ terial blood of Christ, xi. 29. 
James, an Apostle, ix. 5. 
Jealousy, God’s, x. 22. 

Jehovah, viii. 5. 

Jerome, cited, Introd. § 20; on 
St. Paul’s teaching concerning 
marriage, vii. 1, 18; on mar- 
riage of virgins, vil. 28; ona 
doubtful reading, vii. 34; his 
correspondence with Augus- 
tine, ix. 22. 

Jews, character of the, i. 22. 

Job, Book of, cited, iii. 10. 

Jovinian, on sinlessness of mar- 
riage, vi. 19. 

Jowett’s “ Hpistles of St. Paul,” 
cited, Introd. § 13. 

Judas, probably present at the 
Supper, xi. 23, 

Jus naturale, xi. 13. 

Justification, forensic, i. 30; by 
Christ at day of judgment, iv. 
4; not subjective, vi. 11. 

Justin Martyr, cites Epistle, In- 
trod. § 12; stor, from, vii. 
13; on Amen, x. 16; cited, 
xv. 40; on Sunday, xvi. 2; 
on holy kiss, xvi. 20. 


Kingdom, Christ’s, iv. 20; xv. 
24, 28. 

Kiss, holy, xvi. 20. 

Knowledge, what, 1. ὅ; xii. 8; 
faith and, ii. 6; love and, viii. 
1 sqq.; strong brother has, 
viii. 7; partial and therefore 
transient, xiii. 8, 9. 


INDEX. 


Lang, his Commentary, Introd. 
§ 43. 

Law, typical, ix. 8 sqq.; some- 
times includes. the prophets, 
xiv. 21. 

Leaven, moral influence called, 
v. 6. 

Lecky, on Christianity and 
slavery, vii. 22. 

Leibnitz, on symbolical know- 
ledge, xiii. 12. 

Leighton, Abp., on preaching up 
the times, 111. 12. 

Lessing, on Christ’s resurrection, 
i. 22. 

Levites, ix. 13. 

Liberty and love, viii. 1 sqq. 

Lightfoot, Bp., cited, xiii. 3; 
xvi. 10 footnote; xvi. 19. 

Lightfoot’s Hore Hebraice, i. 
10, e¢ al. 

Litigation, vi. 1. 

Litotes, ii. 14. 

Longiuus, cited, Introd. § 17. 

Lord, of glory, ii. 8; sometimes 
not identified with Christ, ii. 
16; sometimes identified with 
Christ, iii. 5; iv. 19; the, of 
the Church is the Creator of 
all things, viii. 6; Jesus is, 
xii. 3; only One, viii. 5. 

Love, knowledge and, viii. 1 
564. ; greater than faith and 
hope, xiii. 13. 

Luke, St., connection of Apostle 
with, vii. 12; mentions cup 
before bread in tho Lord’s 
Supper, x. 16. 

Lutherans, on unbelievers eating 
the body of Christ, xi. 27. 


Maine’s “Ancient Law,” cited, 
vii. 22 footnote; vii. 37. 


INDEX. 


Maranatha, xvi. 22. 

Marcion, admits genuineness of 
Epistle, Introd., ὃ 11; his 
reading Κύριον, x. 9; antici- 
pates Tiibingen theory, xv. 
11; his omission of ἄνθρωπος, 
xv. 47. 

Marriage, under what cireum- 
stances καλόν, vil. 1; when 
annulled, vii. 15; when al- 
lowed to virgins dedicated to 
the Lord, vii. 25 sqq.; when 
allowed to widows, vii. 39 sqq. 

Martensen, Bp., on God as ob- 
ject aud principle, ii. 12. 

Melanchthon, on desertion an- 
nulling marriage, vii. 15. 

Menander, cited, xv. 33. 

Meyer, as commentator, Introd. 
§ 42; cited passim. 

Middle voice, vi. 1, 11; xii. 28. 

Millenarianism, xv. 26. 

Milton, an incorrect interpreta- 
tion by, vii. 12. 

Miracles, i. 22. 

Monotheism, primitive, viii. 5. 

Montanists, forbade second mar- 
riages, vil. 39; their ecstatic 
utterances, xii. 10. 

Moral reason, νοῦς, i. 10; ii. 16. 

Moses, prominence of the man in 
the New Test., x. 2. 

Moz'ey, Canon, cited, on iden- 
tity of sacraments under all 
dispensations, x. 4. 

Miiller, Prof. Max, cited, on 
Monotheism, viii. 5. 

Muratorian Fragment, Introd. 
§ 16. 

Music, instruments of, xiv. 7; 
interval in, th. 

Mystery, meanings of the word, 
ii. 7; ἃ sacrament not pro- 


487 


perly a, iv. 1; a revealed truth 
a, xiv; 2; xv. 51. 

Mythology, heathen, its two con- 
ceptions, viii. 5. 


Nature, meanings of the word, 
xi. 13. 

Nature-worship, x. 20. 

Neronian persecution, xiii. 3. 

Nonna, her life makes her hus- 
band a Christian, vii. 14. 


(Ecumenius, Introd. § 30. 

Old Testament, on justification 
and sanctification, i. 90. 

Order, iii. 22 sq.; xi. 3 sqq.; 
xv. 23; a military term, xiv. 
40. 

Origen, as commentator, Introd. 
§ 24; on. prayer addressed to 
Christ, i. 2; on catechumens, 
ii. 6; on Jesus being Lord of 
glory, ii. 8; on genuineness of 
Epistle, ii. 9; on the purify- 
ing fire, iii. 13; on real free- 
dom of Christian slave, vii. 
21; on εἰδωλόθυτον, x. 28; on 
the resurrection of the dead, 
XV. pussim. 


Paley, Archdeacon, i. 22. 

Participle, pleonastic use of, ii. 
1; present not for future, 11. 
1; iv. 14; hypothetical, xi. 29. 

Passover, the, a sacrificial feast, 
v. 7. 

Patria potestas, wife included in 
the husband’s, vii. 4; prub- 
able laxity of the, in Corinth, 
vii. 37. 


Paul, St., at Corinth, Introd. 


§ 1; founded the Corinthian 
Church, ib. § 3; did he visit 


488 INDEX. 


Corinth twice before writing 
this Epistle? ἐδ. 8 6; did he 
write a previous letter to the 
Corinthians? ib. § 7; v. 9; 
wrote this Epistle, Introd. § 9; 
his central conception, 7b. 
§ 19; his conversion, i. 1; his 
apostleship, i. 1; ix. 1 sqq., 
xv. 8 sqq.; baptizing not an 
express part of his commission, 
i, 15 ; his method of preach- 
ing, i. 17; ii. 1 sqq.; lays the 
foundation, iii. 10; possession 
of the Church, 111. 22; heed- 
less of men’s judgment, iv. 3; 
sufferings and conduct, iv. 9 
sqq.; xv. 32; claims the 
authority of a father, iv. 15; 
present in spirit, v. 3; un- 
married, vii. 8; distinguishes 
between his ownand the Lord’s 
words, vii. 10, 12; an example 
of self-denial, ix.; claims to 
have received a _ revelation 
from Christ, xi. 23; has the 
gift of tongues, xiv. 18; sum 
of his teaching, xv. 3 sqq.; an 
ektroma, xv. 8; asserts his 
fundamental agreement with 
th other apostles, xv. 11; his 
promise to collect alms for the 
Church in Jerusalem, xvi. 1; 
his intention to visit Corinth, 
XVi. 5. 

Peace, the final blessing, i. 3; 
must not be sacrificed, vii. 15; 
kiss of, xvi. 20. 

Pearson, Bp., on divinity of the 
Spirit, ii. 16. 

Pelagius, notes on Epistle, In- 

trod. § 28. 

Perfection, as sincerity, i. 10; 

as more than sincerity, ii. 6. 


Personality, the idea of, how ex- 
pressed, xii. 12. 


Peter Martyr, as commentator, 


Introd. § 37. 

Pfleiderer’s Paulinismus cited, 
πὶ. 1, ν. ὅ; νἱπ. 6. 

Pharisees, their doctrine of the 
resurrection, xv. 36. 

Philo, relation of St. Paul to, 
Introd. § 20; his eclecticism, 
i. 20; on τέλειος, ii. 6; 111, 2; 
on μύστης, iv. 1; hisallegorism, 
vii. 18; ix.10; x. 4; suggests 
the distinction of preecepta and 
consilia, vii. 25; cited, vii. 
353; viii. 3; uses βῶμος of the 
Lord’s altar, ix. 13; on seeing 
reflection of God, xiii. 12; 
angelology of, xv. 24. 

Philosophy, dying, i. 20; pan- 
theistic, 1. 21; Christian, i. 26. 

Plato, on συνοπτικός, ii. 18; on 
ἀρχιτέκτων, 11. 10; on the 
ideal judge, 111. 19; on seeing 
reflections of things, xiii. 12; 

_ on dishonouring the body, xv. 
31; on Hades, xv. 55. 

Pliny’s letter concerning the 
Christians, i. 26; x. 21; xi. 
3; xvi. 2. 

Plumptre, Dean, on Maranatha, 
xvi. 22. 

Polycarp, cites the Epistle, In- 
trod. § 11; cited, iii. 16; his 
reply to the proconsul, xii. 3. 

Prayer, addressed to Christ, i. 


2; leisure for, vii. 5; in the 


spirit, xiv. 14. 

Precepta, vii. 25. 

Preaching, i. 5, 21, 22; ii. 4; 
ix, 1723) xi. 

Present tense, ii. 1; vii. 9, 15; 
xii, 7; xiv. 32. 


χα “5. ιν» 


INDEX. 


Progress, law of, xv. 46 sqq. 
Pronoun, possessive, for objec- 
tive genitive, xi. 24; xv. 81. 

Protestants, of France, xii. 10. 
Psalms, xiv 15. 
Psychical man, ii. 14; iii. 1; xv. 
, 44, 45. 
Purgatory, iii. 13. 
Puritans, the, as commentators, 
Introd. 37. 


Rabbinical tradition, x. 4. 

Race, ix. 20. 

Ransom, vi. 20; vii. 23. 

Redemption, ascribed by a party 
to Paul, i. 13; Christ made, 
i. 30; Christ’s headship rests 
on, ΧΙ. 3 sqq.; xv. 56. 

Reformers, the, as commenta- 
tors, Introd. § 36; their defi- 
nition of faith, xiii. 13. 

Remembrance of Christ in the 
Supper, xi. 24. 

Renaissance, the, Introd. § 33. 

Renan’s “St. Paul” cited, In- 
trod. § 19, et al. 

Restoration, universal, not 
taught in this Epistle, xv. 22. 

Revelation, St. Paul claims to 


have had a, xi. 23; what, 


xii. 7. 

Righteousness, Christ made, i. 
30. 

Roman theory of marriage, vii. 
4, 


Sabatier, on St. Paul’s central 
doctrine, Introd. § 19; on 
σάρξ, iii. 1 footnote; on a 
passage in Tertullian, xv. 51 
footnote. 


489 


Sabbath, xvi. 2. 

Sacraments, not properly my- 
steries, iv. 1; identity of, un- 
der Old and New Testaments, 
x. 4, xi. 23. 

Sacrificial meat, viii. 1 to xi. 1. 

Saints, i. 1; judge the world, 
v.13. vi. 2. 

Salutation, Jewish and Greek 
combined, i. 3; the holy kiss 
a, xvi. 20; the Apostle’s, xvi. 
21. 

Sanctification, Christ made our, 
i. 830; a renewal, vi. 11. 

Satan, to deliver to, v. 5. 

Schism, i. 10; xi. 18; xu. 25. 

Self-examination, xi. 28. 

Self-immolation, xiii. 3. 

Septuagint, sometimes corrected, 
111. 19; xv. 54. 

Simon Magus, ix. 5. 

Sin, the Apostle’s conception 
of, Introd. § 21; progress of, 
Χο τῆν 


‘Slavery, vii. 21. 


Slaves in Corinthian Church, 
vii..21; xvi. 17. 

Socrates, St. Paul and, ii. 4. 

Solidarité of mankind, vii. 14. 

Son of God, is it synonymous 
with Messiah ? i. 9. 

Sonship, of believers, i. 9; of 
Christ, iii. 23. 

Sosthenes, i. 1. 

Species, transmutation of, xv. 
38. 

Spinoza, on Christ’s resurrection, 
xv. 15. 

Spirit, demonstration of, ii. 4; 
procession of, ii. 12; indwell- 
ing of, ii. 15; a disposition, 
iv. 21; the soul.as dwelling- 
place of God’s Spirit, v. 3; 

KK 


490 


vi. 17; xiv. 14; xv. 45; pos- 
session of, vii. 40. 

Spiritual, man, ii. 15; antithesis 
to ψυχικός and σαρκικός, 11]. 
1; food, x. 3; gifts, xii.—xiv.; 
body, xv. 44 sqq. 

Stephanas, i. 16; xvi. 17. 

Stoics, pantheists, i. 21; offended 
at Christianity, i. 26; on 
slavery, vii. 22; on πάθος, vii. 
30; on ἀπερισπάστως, vil. 35; 
on conscience, viii. 7. 

Strauss, on Christ’s 
tion, xv. 15. 

Subjunctive, deliberative, iv. 21; 
vi, 10. 

Subordination, iii. 23; xi. 3; xv. 
28. 

Sunday, xvi. 2. 

Supererogation, works of, vii. 
25. 

Supper, the Lord’s, x. 16 sqq.; 
a preparation for His second 
coming, xi. 26. 


resurrec- 


Table, the Lord’s, x. 21. 
Tatian, cites the Epistle, Introd. 


Temple, only one, ii. 16; the 
believer’s body a, vi. 19. 

Tertullian, cites the Epistle, In- 
trod. § 11; his comments on 
the Epistle, ἐδ. § 23; on the 
Cesars as personification of 
evil, vi. 2; on second mar- 
riages, vil. 39; his classifica- 
tion of charismata, xii. 8; on 
Marcion’s tampering with 
text, xv. 47; on resurrection 
of the flesh, xv. 50, 53; on 
arca, xvi. 1; on the holy kiss, 
xvi. 20. 


INDEX. 


Theocratic notions, i. 30. 

Theodore of Mopsuestia, Introd. 
§ 26, et passim. 

Theodoret, Introd. § 27, et 
passim. 

Theological, speculation, 1. 
virtues, xiii. 13. 

Timotheus, sent to Corinth, iv. 
17; circumcised, ix. 20; com- 
mended to the Corinthians, 
xvi. 10. 

Titus, xvi. 12. 

Tongues, a form of ecstasy, xii. 
10; a punishment as well as 
a gift, xiv. 22. 

Tradition, xi. 2. 

Trajection, 111. 5, οὐ al. 

Transubstantiation, x. 17; xi. 
27. 

Trinitarianism, ΧΙ]. 4. 

Tibingen theory, Introd. ὃ 43; 
1 10.5.11. Ὁ. πν. 1}: 

Turretin, on sanctification of 
believers’ children, vii. 14. 


17: 


| Union, mystical, Introd. § 19; 


_as ground of authority, x1. 3 
sqq. 

Unity, in diversity, xii. 12. 

Unlearned, who, xiv. 25. 

Unworthy participation, xi. 27. 

Utterauce, i. 5; ecstatic, xii. 10; 
xiv. 


Valla, Introd. § 33. 
Virgins, vii. 25, 34. 


Widows, vii. 8, 39. 
Wisdom, Christ made, i. 30; the 
Gospel a, ii. 6; what, xii. 8. 


ο΄] Witsius, on identity of sacra- 
ments under both dispensa- 
‘ tions, x. 4. : 
Women, enjoined to wear the 
~ veil, xi. 2-16; their position 
in Greek society, xi. 2. 
Word, the, x. 4. 


δι 2 INDEX. 


491 


_ World, St. Paul’s conception of 
the, i. 20; organized evil, ii. 
12; the universe, iv. 9; viii. 
4; using the, vii. 31. 


Zwingli, his theory of the 
Supper, x. 16 sqq. 


᾿ 
\ 














Date Due 


a ΝᾺ 
Wistar. 



















ary \ : eed tan pate » mans 
- νὴ ἐνῶ» mane ph hey 4 “ sae | LSPA ae ΨΥ, ΣῪ 
4 <a) Pifowrme tietwon bo". Σ ‘<i ἢ ἢ aly ὃ Κ΄ : eer m, 
6120 νεφαρόῳ καὶ φιϑὴθ Sted BPS Ye isin Toe ΟΝ BLY Rs oD — Sin “νον μα ἡ oe, 


τὴν τορος ας φῦ 


Eby bard eerie δῶν ὦν ων 
ΝΥΝ ae, ὡς ΣΟ » at bel kite tae ot nan 
os 
er ν pa 
; 
A 
P 
— lo 
[οὐ 
Ss 
Ὁ ΙΞΞΞΞΞΞΞΞ Ο) 
- 5 wt 
— 
δ. ." . 
°° —— . 
2 — © , 
a 2 : ‘ 
W eee ~~ ; 
- = 
Ὁ Ἐτ © : 
— uv 
C—O 
vs 
2 ἸΞΞΞΞξ ὦ 
Be ὃ 
©. 
oo ° N 
- 
> τ 
os Εἰ τ... 
Ως © 
wc o 
᾿ὦ ὃ —— τ," 
WE ὁ 
SS 
= 
25 = -- 
-.-.ο....... 
ne 
oct 
ν 2 
- < ᾿ 
‘ “Ὅν: , 
~ - «' 
“. 4 
ΑΞ , 
3 
- 
5 
7 
: pe 
- ue -ς re βούαγιν οι Ἂἷ 
BARS. κα φμω νοι ἔην τ νὸς . - 
wa ~ ων 
Sree 
ef -“- row 
" ttn ἀπ ohe pent gt 
Φ΄.}}.“.1» να. ὦ ᾿ς ὐδδαδοοδδια, neennannanl 


-- 


